1951-02-23

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Martin Raymond Quinn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Kathleen Beatrice Denman Blackadar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Dora Green-well MacKinnon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Albert Edouard Desjardins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Raymond Boyer. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Aline Alina Buka Allaire.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Margaret Beatrice Tynan Dossin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Kathryn Louise Morrison Ralston.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Gerald Tudor Parrott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Marie Leontine Juliette Henriette Giguere	Fiset.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Esther Marie Henning Ober.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Elmsley Alexander Leftly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Ruth Landan Goodman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Yvonne Michaud Telford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Edward Albert Flewitt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Mary Margaret Lillian Phillips Campeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Mary Zientek Latkowski.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Olga Kushner Dolny.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Joseph Taite Connor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Doris Domini-qua Sernuk Wardell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Ann Galganov Schwartz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Doris Mayoff Weinstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Jean-Maurice Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Ann Astroff.- Mr. Winkler.
80709-39£
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Audrey Midgley Bennett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Kathleen Agnes Margaret Saddleton Pout Boon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Bill Oleschuk. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Eileen Haswell Houghton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Saul Samuel Goldsmith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Brigitte Dorothea Felicity Gutmann Lowenbach Brooks.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Violet Edith Hack Findlay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Cerna Segall Bercovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Paulette Charbonneau Lanthier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Ernest Churchill.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
S.	S. "aorangi"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Apparently some arrangement has been reached between the governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand under which it will be possible for the steamship Aorangi to continue operating between Vancouver and the south seas. Can the minister give the house an explanation of the arrangement that has been made?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The arrangement is to the effect that for one year, pursuant to an agreement between the three governments concerned, a subsidy of $400,000 will be made available to the company operating the Aorangi, one-third of which shall be paid by Australia and New Zealand and two-thirds by Canada. This is substantially upon the same basis as the subsidy which was paid by the three governments prior to 1940.


Howard Charles Green: That is very good news for the west coast. Did I understand the minister to say that the subsidy is only for one year?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does this agreement involve landing rights in New Zealand for Canadian Pacific Air Lines?
612	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: It does not, but as I indicated to the house earlier, the prime minister of New Zealand stated when he was here that he would give favourable consideration to that matter, and in fact felt that there would be no difficulty about stopover rights so far as C.P.A. was concerned. There has not yet been confirmation of this, but I have no doubt it will be forthcoming before very long.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. When will work be commenced on the building to replace the science service laboratory at Charlottetown experimental station which was totally destroyed by fire a short time ago?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Offhand, Mr. Speaker, I would not
know; but I will give the hon. member an answer in the near future.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet tabled the exceptions to the safety rules under the Canada Shipping Act, which have been made by the minister under the provisions of the order in council?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. They were tabled as amended under certain regulations at the last session. But if my hon. friend has reference to anything which should be tabled this session-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I am referring to.


Lionel Chevrier: They have not been tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If there are any, they will
be tabled in due course, will they?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.



INFLUENZA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Can the minister say if any check is made on people coming into Canada in connection with this influenza epidemic that they are bringing from Europe?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes. A close check is
made.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister say what it
is, or what they do?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That I have already indicated to the house.



GERMANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What steps, if any, is the government taking with a view to terminating the state of war with Germany, about which a good deal was said in the press some time ago?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs):: 

POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: I
wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to a press report, a school is being opened in Peterborough to train postal employees. If this is correct, why Peterborough, of all places?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member ought to
know. It is the best place in the country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to know
whether that report is correct or not.


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General):: I shall have to check on that matter. I know we have opened a number of schools for the training of our employees. I do not know whether one was in Peterborough.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill (a) to constitute a department of defence production, to be

presided over by a minister, with appropriate provision for the employment of officers, clerks and employees; (b) to provide that the minister shall take steps to mobilize, conserve, and co-ordinate all economic and industrial facilities in respect of defence supplies and defence projects, and in connection therewith, to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and to construct defence projects, and for these purposes to confer appropriate powers on the minister and to provide for the establishment of a defence production board revolving fund; and (c) to provide further that the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition, or use of materials, or the supply or use of services deemed essential for defence purposes.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Prime Minister make a statement on this resolution?


Mr. SI. Laurent:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
This resolution, and the bill to be introduced if and when the resolution is adopted, are to implement the following announcement in the speech from the throne:
You will be asked to approve a bill to establish a Department of Defence Production to act as a procurement agency for the defence forces of Canada and also for such defence requirements of our allies as may be met from Canadian production.
In moving this resolution I do not think it is necessary for me to take very much of the time of the house. That such a department is essential will be4, quite apparent, I think, to all hon. members.
On February 5, in the debate on the address in reply, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) referred to the necessity for a separate department to deal with all matters of production and supply that were entailed by the increased defence program that he was announcing at that time. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) also spoke in the same vein on February 8.
It seems obvious that a defence supply program of the magnitude already indicated requires for its execution wide powers, and we have endeavoured to indicate in the terms of the resolution the extent and scope of those powers. We feel that the implementation of that policy cannot properly be left to agencies or branches of any of the departments which already have important functions to perform, but that it requires a full-fledged department of its own dealing exclusively with those matters.
Hon. members will recall that, at the beginning of the last war, legislation was enacted to provide for the establishment of a department of munitions and supply. This department was to have responsibility for the production and the procurement of all the ammunition, vehicles, clothing and other supplies required by the three services of our armed forces. The department was not set
Defence Production Act up at once. At first those functions were carried out by the war supply board, but the new department soon became necessary, and it was set up in April of 1940. That was done notwithstanding the fact that at that time the procurement program was not, in magnitude, anything like the one we are undertaking at the present time.
After the close of hostilities with Germany and Japan, the powers connected with defence supply were transferred to the minister of reconstruction and supply and were carried out in co-ordination with the demobilization that was proceeding at that time. Then, still maintaining the principle of non-military procurement of the requirements of the armed services, these functions were transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the responsibility for procurement rested with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, while the nucleus of a production organization was maintained through Canadian Arsenals.
The arrangements I have just mentioned were quite satisfactory for the post-war period and entirely adequate for the size of the defence program that was then being carried out. Now, however, the situation has changed. The greatly increased defence program not only calls for greater purchases, but, what is more important, requires some direction of the production program in such fields as production, aircraft, shipbuilding, vehicles, armament and ammunition. The present high level of demand for practically all major commodities has already made it necessary for the government to take a certain measure of direction and control or allocation of such an essential material as steel, for instance. The action taken so far has been under the Essential Materials (Defence) Act passed at the special session of parliament held last fall.
It seems to us that a point has now been reached where the authorities and arrangements that have been satisfactory so far are no longer felt to be adequate to handle the situation we are in today or to deal with the problems that are apt to arise in the immediate future. I am sure most hon. members will agree that these greatly increased demands should not be superimposed on a civilian department already charged with responsibility in other fields. It seems to us, in the interest of good administration and efficient operation, that all those activities relating to the procurement and production of defence requirements should be coordinated in one department.
Until such time as the legislation has been passed and the appropriate recommendations made to His Excellency the Governor General, it would of course be technically

Defence Production Act discourteous to the crown to forecast who is likely to take the responsibility of administering that department. But in view of the experience of the Minister of Trade and Commerce during the last war, we have relied to a very substantial degree on him to draft the legislation which might be appropriate for such a department; and I have asked him, when the resolution has been adopted and the bill is under consideration in its details by the house, to make himself responsible for giving the reasons for the provisions that he has recommended should be in a bill that would provide for the kind of machinery which would be apt to do the job this department will have as its great responsibility.
I do not think that there is much more that I should say. I have no doubt that hon. members will want to give careful and perhaps critical consideration to the various provisions of this bill. But I imagine that there will be no diverging views as to the advisability of having one department made responsible for carrying out the procurement and production part of the very large program that was outlined to the house by the Minister of National Defence on February 5; and I would hope that most hon. members would wish to have the bill before them before entering into any long debate about the advisability of such a course of action.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, because of the very serious situation which Canada is facing at the present time, and because of the ever-present threat of war, members of the official opposition have no intention of opposing this particular resolution or the bill which will follow it, unless that bill turns out to be in terms which are objectionable.
From what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said, I take it that there is no doubt this department will be under the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and judging from press reports, and also in the light of what has happened in years gone by, that he will continue to be the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Such being the case, one might perhaps question whether this defence production could not have been carried on as a branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce rather than setting up a new department; because we all know that once a department has been set up, it is very difficult to do away with it, no matter how little it may be needed. As a general rule I think it is unwise to set up more departments of government.
However, as I have indicated, we do not intend to oppose this resolution; but I believe it would be as well for the minister who is to

have charge of this department to make some explanation to the house today, rather than act under the fiction that he has no authority whatever and knows nothing about this new department prior to the introduction of the bill. The house and the Canadian people would be helped by a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce setting out the present position with regard to defence production. It is perfectly obvious that there is to be a drive to increase our defence production. That drive will require the wholehearted support not only of hon. members but also of the Canadian people generally. In these circumstances it would be as well for the minister to give us a statement showing the present state of defence production in Canada and outlining his plans for the future. He did that during the war years, and the practice was very helpful.
There are several questions on which we should like to have a statement of government policy. For example, what is to be the policy with regard to dispersing industry in Canada? We were all startled to read in the press just a day or two ago that there is to be a new defence headquarters outside Ottawa, built underground at a cost of $30 or $40 million; and I believe a precaution of that kind is very necessary. But there are other centres in Canada which would be pbvious targets in an atomic attack. Some of them have already been listed, such as the locks at Sault Ste. Marie, and the great industrial centre of Hamilton; the west coast area of greater Vancouver; I presume also the city and island of Montreal, and the city of Toronto, and probably the city of Windsor. These have all been pointed out by government officials as probable targets in the event of an atomic war. The Americans have been told very frankly by the chief of their air staff that it will be impossible to prevent at least some planes from getting through in the event of war, and that they must expect atomic attacks. Canada must certainly expect them also. Therefore some statement should be made by the government as to its policy with regard to dispersing industry. New industries will be established; there will be expansion of present industries, but there will be very little chance of these .new industries being placed away from the present large centres, unless that is government policy and direct steps are taken by the new department to bring about that result. I believe that in the United States there is a policy of dispersing industry, and the Canadian people are entitled to know whether a similar policy is to be adopted in Canada.
Then, there should also be a statement, either by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as to

whether it will be the policy of the government, acting through this new department, to strengthen parts of Canada which were not strengthened industrially during the last war. This involves spreading out our industries. It would involve, for example, establishing industries in the maritime provinces, on the prairies, and in British Columbia, away from the great centres of Ontario and Quebec where at the present time most of the industrial strength of Canada is concentrated.
We learned during the last war that a great deal could be done by the government in the way of placing industries, because of the powers exercised by the government over those industries. I do not know to what extent the government has in mind the policy of building up various parts of Canada, but we already hear complaints, for example, in connection with sustaining contracts. Those are the contracts which enable firms to try out types of production to see what they can do. The complaint is that such contracts are not being placed away from the large centres in Ontario and Quebec. My information on the point may be correct or incorrect; but there has been the suggestion that the government is not making very much of an attempt to spread out industry in Canada.
We should also like to know whether it is the intention of the government, acting under the powers to be given to the new department, to build up Canada for the future. Let us for a moment consider the use of our iron ore, of which we now have huge reserves. The Americans are very much aware of those reserves. Hon. members will have noticed that now almost the whole of the argument in the United States in support of the St. Lawrence waterway development is based on the need to get Canadian iron ore down to the American steel plants on the great lakes.
Has Canada any plans in mind for the use of that iron ore in the development of Canada? Is there any plan to use it for the purpose of steel production in Cape Breton island, or anywhere else in the maritime provinces? Is it to be used to develop plants on the St. Lawrence to produce steel, or to produce it in Canadian centres on the great lakes? Here again there cannot be the development there should be in Canada unless an aggressive lead is taken by the government. Out on the west coast we are greatly concerned as to whether a large aluminum industry is to be established in the Prince Rupert district. Apparently the final decision has not yet been reached. It is known, however, that aluminum will be badly needed, not only by Canada, but also
Defence Production Act by her allies. The minister should tell us whether it is the policy of the government to give every encouragement to the establishment of that aluminum industry on the west coast.
Then, we should be told the relationship of the new Department of Defence Production to the Department of National Defence, and also to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Just where does the Department of National Defence fit into the picture? During the last war the department of munitions and supply was really a branch- a very strong one; perhaps I should have called it a partner rather than a branch-of the Department of National Defence. It would now appear that the new Department of Defence Production is to be closely allied with the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that relationship should be explained by the ministry.
I believe the businessmen of Canada are most anxious to co-operate with the government in a defence production plan. That is certainly so on the west coast. A day or two before we came east to attend this session the members from greater Vancouver, some of whom I see in the chamber today and who, I am sure, will confirm my remarks, were invited to a meeting of the council of the Vancouver board of trade for the purpose of learning the steps the council thought could be taken to enable them to help the defence production program of the country.
Today I should like to tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce about one or two of the suggestions made by that council. Most of their suggestions, may I say, had to do with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which I presume will play a large part in handling the defence production program. It was pointed out to us that, under the present practice of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, tenders in most cases are asked on a basis of price f.o.b. point of destination, and that in practically every case the point of destination is the central ordnance depot in Ottawa or the sub-ordnance depot at Montreal.
That policy worked out in this way: the Vancouver manufacturer produced his goods and was able to offer them at a certain price. But because contracts were called f.o.b. point of destination he had to add the freight. On the other hand the manufacturer in Montreal had a much smaller amount of freight to add to his tender. He had the same production price, but had to add a much smaller amount of freight to bring his product from Montreal to Ottawa. In arriving at his tender he would add the cost of freight from Vancouver to Ottawa, deducting perhaps ten or fifteen cents

Defence Production Act -just enough to bring him under the Vancouver tender-with the result that he would get the contract and also the benefit, with the small allowance I have indicated, of the difference in freight between Vancouver and Ottawa and Montreal and Ottawa. In effect the government was paying the Montreal manufacturer the greater portion of a freight bill from Vancouver.
That sort of thing is just ridiculous, and it is most unfair to the manufacturer out in the more remote parts of the country. In addition, it is a waste of the country's money.


Mr. Howe:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is that his own theory, or is it the theory of the Vancouver board of trade? I can tell him that if all supplies were bought f.o.b. factory those supplies would practically all be supplied by firms in Montreal and Toronto, regardless of destination points.


Howard Charles Green: I am pointing out some of the complaints made by these businessmen. They were not speaking in a partisan fashion; there was nothing political about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, I understand that.


Howard Charles Green: They were simply suggesting that some action should be taken by the government to remedy what they considered an unfair practice.
Another suggestion was that in some cases at the present time tenders are called by the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the complete production of a firm over a certain period. The result is that a firm making a successful tender must give up its production for civilian purposes during that period, and so many cannot afford to tender on government contracts. The suggestion was that tenders should be called for the whole or part only of the production. For example, they pointed out that tenders might be called for 25,000 battledress outfits. Apparently the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been calling for large quantities of them. The goods are shipped to the depot here and then shipped out again, some perhaps back to Vancouver. I believe that this has also been happening in the case of some of the other things about which I spoke a few minutes ago. Some of the goods that are purchased are sent back to the different depots across the country. Why should it not be possible for a firm to tender on the requirements of the depot in the particular area in which it is located? It was represented to us that it would be far more reasonable if, for example, tenders for 10,000 uniforms were called for in British Columbia and Alberta; more firms in those provinces would tender on that basis.


Another complaint was that in some cases it is only possible to get essential materials by using quotas for civilian goods. A firm will have a quota for civilian goods, but if it tenders on defence requirements it has to use that civilian quota. We were told that it would be wiser to give a priority to the particular firm for defence needs and leave the quota for their production of civilian needs intact.
The suggestion was also made that before defence installations are placed in a city there should be consultation with the municipal authorities. Most Canadian cities now have planning boards, but the practice seems to be for the government to walk in and put in its installations without any consultation with those boards. That practice could well be altered.
One other statement we ask from the minister is with regard to the checking of expenditures to be made by this new department. The resolution provides for a defence production revolving fund. That is an unusual provision in connection with ' a government department. I am sure the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) would like to have such a fund for the operation of his department. This is obviously an unusual provision. Unless some method is devised to check expenditures I am afraid that they may well run wild.
There is no doubt that there will be hundreds of millions of dollars involved. Under the present law there is no effective way in which parliament can check such expenditures. It may be we could get around the difficulty by authorizing the public accounts committee to check current expenditures, or perhaps additional powers could be given to the Auditor General. But some method should be devised under which there would be an adequate check of the expenditures to be made by this department. I have no doubt that the minister in charge would prefer to have some such provision in the law. _ We are now in a time when it is difficult to get firm tenders. Prices are rising rapidly and many companies will not tender on a fixed price basis. There would appear to be far more danger of war profiteering under present conditions than there was during the second world war. Therefore we ask that some explanation be given of the means proposed for checking the expenditures by this new department.
These are the recommendations we have to make at this time. I repeat that it is of great importance that there be a full explanation of all these semi-mobilization measures, for the benefit of hon. members here in the

house as well as the people across the country. It is most difficult for Canadians to realize that they may be facing a third world war tomorrow; in fact it is also difficult for me to realize that, and I think for everyone in this house to realize that such could possibly be the case in A.D. 1951 after we have already been through two world wars.
Because it is so difficult to be realistic under present conditions, there is a greater necessity than ever before to have these policies made crystal clear, to have them explained fully to the Canadian people. I hope that either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce will take the time to answer the questions I have placed before the house.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, we shall not oppose this resolution, nor do we question the efficiency of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who, it is intimated, will head the new department to be set up under the bill following the adoption of the resolution. The fault we find is not with the star performer of the government in the person of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but with the general government policy as it pertains to the purchase and extension of military facilities. There are two or three points pertaining to that policy on which we should like some information when the minister speaks to the bill.
Last week end I met a crowd of great war veterans in my riding. One question they asked which was not easy to answer was this: How is it that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is finding it so difficult to house service personnel at this time? They had read his statement in the newspapers about the great scarcity of housing for military personnel. I read the following in his report for 1949-50:
In 1948-49 we let contracts for 2,160 married quarters and in addition there were 273 housing units under construction at the end of the year. This year our housing program includes the expenditure by this department of nearly $17 million on married quarters with a considerably larger sum to be expended through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on houses earmarked for service personnel. Over $90 million was allocated for all construction for defence purposes this year, which may be compared with the total expenditure on defence construction of $219 million in 1942.
Then the minister goes on to say in his report:
For a good many years to come, expenditures on construction will constitute a major item in the defence program. We have to accommodate seven or eight times the numbers we had before the war, and have much larger requirements for operational units, stores, hangars, training establishments- indeed every type of construction in every part of the country.
Defence Production Act
The question that arises in my mind, and in the minds of a great many taxpayers, is why the building program has to be compared with our position before the war. We read here that in one year during the war, 1942, we spent $219 million on defence construction. The taxpayers of Canada, whose money paid for that construction, are asking-and I think quite rightly-what has become of all the construction provided during the war years, and why we now have to start all over again from scratch to construct all the various types of buildings needed for national defence.
In contrast with the minister's report, when he was crying for hangars, housing accommodation and buildings of all kinds in all parts of the country, in the same year when the Minister of National Defence was allocating $90 million for building construction, War Assets had a very efficient department solely occupied with the demolition and disposal of every type of building that had been constructed during the war. That is not something that happened three or four years ago, but last year. In the same year in which the Minister of National Defence was asking for $90 million and crying for all kinds of buildings, War Assets was demolishing and disposing of the same type of buildings that the minister was calling for.
I find, for instance, that they disposed of ten hangars last year at the same time that the minister was crying for hangars. Most of them were disposed of to private industrial companies, a few to municipalities and universities. I find that in the same year there were forty-one different parcels or lots of buildings sold, the type which the minister is now wanting for the purpose of housing military forces. I should like to bring a few of these to the attention of the house. There was a lot of ten buildings sold at Chebucto military camp, Halifax. There were sixteen buildings sold at the army camp at Saint John, New Brunswick; thirty-five buildings at West Camp, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; two buildings at Toronto airport; eight buildings at the former R.C.A.F. station at Boundary Bay, B.C.; fifty-five buildings at the former Sussex, New Brunswick, military camp.
Those fifty-five buildings were disposed of for $10,000, or at a price of less than $200 per building. I was in some of them when I visited there during the war, and it would seem to me that somebody got a fairly good bargain when he purchased that block of fifty-five buildings for $10,000.
There was a hangar sold at Jarvis, Ontario; another hangar at Jarvis; thirteen buildings at a former Quebec airport; buildings at division headquarters area, Prince George;
618

Defence Production Act buildings at Mount Pleasant airdrome, P.E.I., a hangar at Neepawa, Manitoba; another hangar at Jarvis; twenty-six buildings at the air force station at Stanley, Nova Scotia, and so on down the list. Altogether there are forty different lots of buildings. The taxpayers of my riding are asking how it is that, in the same year when the government was disposing of these buildings, the Minister of National Defence was crying for buildings and suggesting that we should have to appropriate possibly hundreds of millions of dollars for more construction.
Incidentally, while we spent $219 million in 1942, War Assets, which has been very busy through the years disposing of properties, indicate on page 10 of their report for 1949 that total sales of property from July 12,	1944, to March 31,	1949, realized
$53,943,274. In other words, $53 million was realized over a period of five years from the sale of these properties on which we had spent over $200 million in one year alone, and last year $90 million was allocated for this particular type of construction.
I think some explanation is due the Canadian taxpayer who provided the money for these buildings during the five years of the war. He is asking how it is that we now have to start again where we were in 1939, and build all over again. He is asking why it is that, when the Minister of National Defence needed the same type of buildings in all parts of the country, another department of the government was disposing of such buildings. That is one phase of policy on which we would like some explanation.
The second point I want to discuss briefly is one that has been already referred to, the question of the decentralization of war industries and war contracts. Much has already been said on that subject. I should like to refer to a report of an address by Mr. H. J. Carmichael, chairman of the Canadian industrial defence board, found in the Evening Citizen of January 25, 1949. The report reads in part:
... in an address prepared for delivery to the Canadian Construction Association he further advised that thought be given to dispersal of industries among smaller centres as a safeguard against the atom bomb and fast flying jet propelled bombers. This trend toward decentralization has manifold benefits other than that of national security.
Others have spoken of the need, but the fact that defence industries were centralized during the war is, I think, best shown by the number of employees who were engaged in war industries at that time. We get these figures from a document published by the department of reconstruction and supply, entitled "Location and effects of wartime


industrial expansion in Canada, 1939-44." These figures indicate the increase in wartime industrial employment from 1939 to 1944 by geographical divisions.
In September, 1939, there were 88,014 wartime industrial employees in the three maritime provinces. On July 1, 1944, there were 144,791, an increase of 7-8 per cent. Over the same year, the increase in central Canada -


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just for clarification, would the hon. member repeat what he said about maritime employment?


Joseph William Noseworthy: According to the table given in this booklet the three maritime provinces had 88,014 engaged in wartime industrial employment-that is the heading used.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In what year?


Joseph William Noseworthy: In September, 1939.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was no war then, was there?
Mr. Nose worthy: In July, 1944, that number had risen to 144,791, an increase of 7-8 per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: An increase of 7-8 per cent over
what?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is 72 per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member's mathematics are sour.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am reading directly from this government publication.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are not reading it correctly.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am reading it correctly, and I shall pass it over to the minister afterwards so that he can see for himself. In Ontario and Quebec the number of employees rose from 829,000 to 1,323,515, and the comparison given here is 71-4 per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And in the other case, it is 72 per cent.


Joseph William Noseworthy: For the prairie provinces the number increased from 154,426 to 210,332, or 11-3 per cent; in British Columbia, from 103,878 to 176,296, or 9-5 per cent. The figures showing the increase in those employed in war production in those provinces during those years indicate quite clearly, I think, the extent to which war industries were centralized in the three provinces.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out to the hon. member that the largest increase he mentioned was in the maritime provinces. He called it 7-8 per cent, but if he will analyse the figures he will see that it is obviously 72 per cent.


Mr. Brooks:: I would say that is the most ridiculous statement I ever heard in this House of Commons.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I agree with the hon. member; nevertheless I am taking the figures just given.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Well, we shall have to check the government's mathematics. Evidently no steps are yet being taken to decentralize the war contracts now being given by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
From the figures given in the Financial Post I have selected at random two different periods, the first from December 18 to December 30, 1950. I find during that time there were six contracts let in British Columbia for $164,000; six let in Alberta for $106,000- I am giving the even figures-one in Saskatchewan for $35,000; thirteen in Manitoba for $584,000; eighty-six in Ontario for $8,858,000; sixty-four in Quebec for $4,336,000; thirteen in Nova Scotia for $518,000; three to New Brunswick for $292,000; one to Prince Edward Island for $5,000; and one to New Brunswick for $12,000.
In the period from January 2 to January 13, 1951, we have very much the same story. British Columbia secured eleyen contracts worth $143,000; Alberta three, worth $78,000; Saskatchewan none; Manitoba six, worth $207,000; Ontario eighty-four, worth $2,440,000; Quebec thirty-nine, worth $2,363,000; Nova Scotia ten, worth $94,000; New Brunswick four, worth $34,000, and Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland got no contracts during that period. I give those figures simply to indicate that it is quite evident the government is following the same policy today that was followed during the war years so far as the distribution of war contracts is concerned. When the minister speaks, we should like him to outline to us whether there is to be any change in government policy in this respect.
The third feature of the government's program which we call into question is just what is to be the government's policy concerning the profit from war expenditures or from defence expenditures. We certainly approved the policy adopted by the government during the war years when the excess profits tax was instituted. For instance, I find that the following figures appear in Hansard in the appendix to the budget speech of April 29; 1947. In 1942-43 the government collected $454,581 in excess profits taxes; 1943-44, $468,718; 1944-45, $465,805; 1945-46, $494,196; 1946-47, $448,700, a total during the five years of $2,332,000. During the last session the question of an excess profits tax was
Defence Production Act brought up in this house, and it became fairly clear from the statement we received that the government was not considering the introduction of such a tax. If we are again embarking on a period of large expenditures for defence purposes, then we think that the taxpayers, who in the final analysis pay the bill, are entitled to know just what limitations, if any, the government intends to place on those profits. Is there to be a ceiling of any kind on profits? Is there to be an excess profits tax? We ask the minister, when he speaks, to discuss that feature of the defence program with us.
A fourth phase of the government's policy that we have objected to

and we objected during the war years-is the amount of money that was spent by the government or given by the government to private enterprise by way of subsidies and by way of accelerated depreciation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he spoke to the house on February 8, had this to say as reported at page 180 of Hansard:
To date, it has been possible to place defence contracts without any material expansion of industrial facilities. It is now obvious that growing requirements will make it necessary to expand Canada's present industrial capacity. It is hoped that this expansion can be financed privately. A plan for accelerated depreciation is being worked out, to apply to that type of expansion required for war that will have a greatly diminished peacetime value. In addition, and as a last resort, it may be necessary to provide capital assistance for a few types of expansion. Where capital assistance is used, the facilities so created will remain the property of His Majesty.
A great many people are wondering just what happened to all the plant extensions, to all the new buildings, and to all the machinery that was installed in many of those buildings during the war years. I remember visiting many of those factories and seeing rows of new, up-to-date machines, all carrying a plaque saying that they were the property of the Canadian government. The Canadian people-hundreds of thousands of whom worked in industry and who operated those machines-are concerned to know just what has happened to those machines and to many of the buildings which housed them.
On page 2 of this particular government paper which the Minister of Trade and Commerce finds to be inaccurate, I read:
Up to V-J day the government had spent $706 million on industrial plant expansion, excluding tooling costs. Of this amount, seventy-five per cent represents investment in plants wholly owned by the crown.
Again, we should like to know how much equity the government has today for the $706 million that was spent on industrial plant expansions during the war. Before the Canadian taxpayers are asked to provide

Defence Production Act more hundreds of millions of dollars for building and equipping plants for the production of war material, I think they have a right to know what happened to the plants on which that sum of $706 million was spent. They also have a right to know who owns those plants now. That information is not available. I have looked through a number of sessional papers, according to which members had asked for information with regard to these plants on which subsidies were paid.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has not been around these last few years.


Joseph William Noseworthy: In several instances the question was asked: Who owns those plants now? The answer given in every instance was: Information not available. If we may believe the information contained in those sessional papers, apparently the government does not even know who owns those plants on which the government spent so many hundreds of millions of dollars during the war.
Then of course there is the whole question of the machinery that was installed in those plants during the war. I have been able to find no estimate of what the government spent for that purpose or what the government realized on the sale of that machinery after the war. If the minister can give us that information I am sure it would be appreciated across this country.
Then there is the question of special and accelerated depreciation which I think comes in for some little study. In one sessional paper, No. 239-C, tabled in the house on January 1, 1939, a copy of which I have here on my desk, I read the following:
The amount of special depreciation authorized to Canadian Industries between 1st January, 1939, and 31st December, 1946, is $444,949,665,18.
I want hon. members to note how the return goes into detail, down to eighteen cents. On page 2 of this book that is entitled "Location and effects of wartime industrial expansion in Canada, 1939-1944" I also read:
An additional $500 million of war industrial expansion was undertaken directly by private industry and represents the amount authorized under the War Exchange Conservation Act and by the war contract depreciation board.
So that if I may rely on the figures quoted in that paper, private enterprise invested $500 million in war expansion on which the total depreciation, according to this return covering the same years, is $444 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish I could rely on the hon. member to be correct to the same extent that he can rely on the figures to be correct. In one case he was taking the figures from 1939 to 1946 and in the other case he was taking the figures from 1939 to 1944. When he talks

about being correct-and he is talking a great deal about it-if he would himself be correct about fifty per cent of the time, it would not be too bad.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Granted, Mr. Speaker,
that the period quoted for the depreciation may not coincide exactly with the period in which the $500 million was spent, may I say that they both take in a period of the war. While the $444 million may not apply directly to the $500 million invested by private capital, it does indicate so near as I can get information-


Clarence Decatur Howe: As near as you can get it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I would be very delighted if the minister would give us the exact information showing just what depreciation was allowed over a specific number of years as compared with the private investment in war expansion over the same period of years.
Members of parliament find it extremely difficult to get very much of this information from the department. I have gone-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Speak for yourself. I think
other hon. members get on pretty well.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have studied practically every sessional paper bearing on the subject and such statistics as I can find. However, we will get to a few things about which we can be more exact. One of the questions asked in sessional paper 239-D is:
What loss in the revenues of Canada, either by way of loss on excess profits or otherwise, was caused by allowances of the said depreciation?
The answer is:
No loss of revenue was caused.
The answer went on to say:
These allowances were made to cover the cost of facilities for the production of munitions and other war supplies which facilities otherwise would have had to be paid for out of the government revenue.
Apparently, if the government had not given private enterprise this $444 million by way of accelerated depreciation, the government would have been obligated to put its own money into the construction of the buildings and providing the plants which were necessary for the maintenance of war production in a time, I may say, of great national emergency.
Another interesting statement in sessional paper 239-D is as follows:
The facilities were adjudged by a competent independent tribunal to have no value except for the production of war material. This total is purely a war cost and cannot be viewed fairly in other light.
I do not think we need statistics. This publication to which I have already referred

covers the years 1939 to 1944, and was published November 1, 1945. Concerning that $500 million private capital investment, we read:
Information available (in 1945) indicates that at least seventy per cent of this investment will have a post-war value.
Place against that the statement contained in the sessional paper to the effect that a competent independent tribunal claims that this has no production value except for war materials. I suppose that even after 1945 many of these plants were used for the production of war material. Anyone who knows the industrial picture across this country knows that most of these plants which were built with taxpayers' money by way of subsidy or depreciation went back to the owners at a very greatly reduced price, and that most of them remain in production.
There were a few special cases of accelerated depreciation to which I wish to call the attention of the house. I refer to sessional paper 239-A. A question was asked for a break-down as follows:
What amount of accelerated depreciation has been allowed to individuals or firms for the purpose of
(a)	erecting or extending or improving buildings;
(b)	other purposes?
The answer was:
Information not available.
Then the following question was asked:
What were the amounts of the ten largest allowances for (a) buildings; (b) other purposes?
The answer was:
Information not available.
Some questions were asked regarding the depreciation allowance made to two firms. Probably we can take these as samples. The firms were Massey-Harris Company, Limited, and Cockshutt Plow Company, Limited. We find that for the years 1939 to 1946 special depreciation for the Massey-Harris Company, Limited, amounted to $1,367,525.35 and for the Cockshutt Plow Company, Limited, for the same years, 1939 to 1946, the accelerated depreciation amounted to $1,936,943.99. Then the following question was asked:
What use is now being made of each such plant?
The answer was:
No information available.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member that he has exhausted his time.


Joseph William Noseworthy: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister, in replying or speaking to the bill, to indicate to us government policy; to give us an explanation of the housing situation that I raised and government policy regarding the question of decentralization of contracts and war or defence industries. I should like a statement
Defence Production Act regarding the government policy on profits in the period into which we are now entering, and whether the government intends to follow the somewhat generous policy of accelerated depreciation and subsidy to industries in the future as it did in the last war.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be wise for me at this time to enter into any extended attempt at criticism. We feel that we should like to wait until the bill is before us to see what it contains, and also to take a look at the statement which the Minister of Trade and Commerce may make in reply to the questions that have been asked him thus far.
I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has placed before the house and the government a number of considerations in which we are interested. I should not like to take the time of the house to repeat them now. Let me just say that we agree with the policy outlined in the resolution. We think that the problem of procurement and production for defence purposes will be big enough to require a department. Certainly when one is seized with the immensity of the emergency that does face us, he can understand why the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would want all of the work of procurement of defence production centralized into one department.
I think it is only fair to say that Canada is fortunate at this time to have available the services of a man of as great experience in this kind of work as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Whatever one's personal views may be about what he has done in the past, we cannot help feeling that here again is a case of the man and the hour coming together. I would say that, from my own personal point of view, I thank God we have the brains, the experience and the integrity necessary to meet the situation that does face us.
I listened with some interest to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), and I must say that many of the points he brought out this afternoon have crossed my mind. But the fact is that in times of emergency and war unusual means do have to be taken to ensure production, and we have to take unusual risks to get that production. After all, the production is the thing that counts, and the delivery of the goods at the time and place required is of the most importance. I realize all too well that that must be the guiding influence in whatever the government does.
Such things therefore as accelerated depreciation and subsidization by government loans, it seems, have to be used to induce the effort to make the production available quickly, so

Defence Production Act as to meet an emergency. What are the alternatives? That is the question I would ask. I suppose hon. members to my right- and I say this with all respect-would say that there ought to be more government enterprise. My own feeling toward that alternative would be that we would probably suffer greater losses. That has been my experience in the past.
There is only one other alternative, and that is sufficient assistance for private enterprisers, private producers-because they will not take a chance on losing their shirts. Something has to be done to guarantee that they will come out of a war period in at least no worse condition than they went into it. Otherwise they will not come forward to give assistance in meeting the emergency.
Those are the only two 'alternatives. We grant that the government will probably have to take a hand; it may have to do what it did during the last war and set up some industries itself. If that becomes necessary, then, go to it-and I think the people of Canada will back you.
However, we have committed ourselves in Canada to a system of private enterprise. That being so, it seems to me the government is bound to use whatever means may be available to get the production from private enterprise required to meet this emergency. I for one will support the government in doing that. It is true that one could go back through the records of the last war and find instances, such as those cited by the hon. member for York South, where there was accelerated depreciation, thus putting into the hands of certain people after the war plants for which the taxpayers of this country may have put out large sums of money. But I am going to say right here and now that if such a plant as Canadair happens to be one of them, then I thank God we have Canadair.
After all, we have to take these things relatively, so far as we can. What would be the relative loss between the way the government did it and the way some others have done it? That is what we have to consider. I will say for the hon. member for York South that I believe he has drawn to the government's attention the necessity for using extra precautions, and for seeing to it that the taxpayers' money and interests are safeguarded. I go along with him one hundred per cent in that. I advocate that in whatever we do the taxpayers' interests shall be safeguarded so far as is humanly possible.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) issued warnings, and I agree with them, too, one hundred per cent. He mentioned one point about which

I should like to speak briefly, and that was the revolving fund sought in the resolution. Unless one has had some experience with a revolving fund of that kind it is easy to see how there may be fears in people's minds in connection with its control. I believe however that it is a wise provision. I do not see how in the world a huge department of this kind could procure or could induce the production of the things we will need to meet this emergency without having some kind of revolving fund.
I have helped to operate revolving funds before-not as large as this one of course by any means-but we feel that one of the important things in its favour is that it cuts down to a minimum the competition for goods in short supply. I do not see how in the world we could get along without it, if every department which required, for example, building materials went out to buy those materials on the market. Such action naturally would push prices up to the extent of perhaps twenty, thirty or forty per cent. But, having the purchases concentrated in one department, under a revolving fund, a supply of such goods can be laid in and then allocated to the various departments as required, having regard to proper priorities. It seems to me that in this procedure we would certainly save money and keep prices within reason.
Another point is that of allocation. I do not know how in the world we could allocate unless we had a stockpile. How could we allocate to the various departments requiring these goods, at the time they require them? That is the purpose of the revolving fund, and I am sure that is what the minister has in mind.
There is only one point to remember, and that is that even if the revolving fund does make for more orderly purchasing, we do have to take unusual care in seeing to it that the controls are set up in a way so as to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers. I think that is what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra had in mind.
Just one more point and I shall have finished. In any effort made to decentralize industry during this emergency, no matter how long it may last, I hope the government will not lose sight of the natural advantages offered in those various parts of the country where there are few industries at the present time. I believe the far east and the far west ought to have more industries-and in this I speak for both of them. If I say something in particular about the part of the country from which I come, it is only because I am more familiar with that part. I believe we may safely lay down the principle that in a

time of war or danger it is wise to have our industry dispersed as far as possible over the whole country. That is prudent action, for the safety of the people.
Secondly, it is wise not only in wartime to have industrialization spread so far as possible throughout the country, because in the various economies we have had in the provinces in the past there has been a lopsidedness which has not redounded to the welfare of the people of those provinces or to the country as a whole. The country cannot be any stronger than the provinces comprising it. The weakest of them will certainly tear down the strength of our country considerably. I recall that not very long ago my own province of Alberta had an almost entirely wheat economy. Under that wheat economy we suffered a great many reverses that could have been avoided had there been industrialization on anything like a commensurate scale. Now we are emerging into a period where we could be a great industrial province if our natural endowments were used as they ought to be used. We are not suggesting that this belongs entirely on the doorstep of the dominion government-not by any means- but we do say that in the period ahead the government could do a great deal to see to it that provinces like Alberta, British Columbia and the far eastern provinces-perhaps others if I have not named them-get a fair share of the industrial growth that always comes through war and wartime.
I should like to point out just one specific example, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) may know about this. The minister is familiar with the shortage of sulphur that has developed. I am told that as the years go by it will become more difficult to get supplies of sulphur. One of the results of the shortage of sulphur in Canada is that pulp and paper manufacturing cannot go ahead as rapidly as the orders come in.
Some of our oil wells and gas wells, particularly in the southern part of Alberta, contain a high sulphur content. It would not cost a great amount of money to separate that sulphur from the gas. In order to have gas in the quantities that would make it possible to produce sulphur economically it would be necessary to have an accumulation of industry, either in the province or nearby, to use the gas from which the sulphur has been separated.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Or export it.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, or export it. I am glad the minister brought that up because it gives me an opportunity to say that the province of
Defence Production Act Alberta is prepared to export gas just as soon as it has the assurance that there is a sufficient reserve to safeguard the people's interests for, say, thirty years ahead and to maintain a supply in the pipe lines that may be built to other places. It is only a question of what the reserves are.
The next important question is: Why take the gas away from the province when you can perhaps build industries more cheaply right in the province? Stop and think what it costs to build a thirty-inch pipe line to go 2,200 miles. Put a fraction of that cost into the development of factories and industry within the province and the people will save a lot of money. On the other hand, when we do find that there are sufficient reserves I am sure we will be glad to share our good fortune with other parts of the country.
I am simply saying that the government most certainly can use its influence and wisdom to see to it that there is a balance of allocation of the new industrial effort that may be required to meet this emergency. I am making this appeal, not only on behalf of Alberta but on behalf of those other parts of Canada that have not been developed industrially. We shall reserve any criticism we have to make until we see the terms of the bill, and in the meantime I assure the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we support the principle of the resolution.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just one word on this resolution. As has been stated, we are going to support it. There is one feature which has been mentioned time and again in this house to which I should like to refer again-the problem of decentralization. I think there are obvious reasons why we should decentralize. Up to this point apparently the policy of the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been not to decentralize its defence contracts.
In an order for return which I received the other day in reply to a question I had asked I find that Saskatchewan got only about one-tenth of one per cent of the contracts for defence which were let in the first nine months of this year. I find also that three maritime provinces, excluding Nova Scotia but including Newfoundland, and three prairie provinces, a total of six provinces, got only 4.5 per cent of those contracts.
The minister can easily say that there is no industry in those parts of the country, but I say to him that all we want him to do is to use the industry already there. My own province got only $450,000 worth of contracts in the first nine months of this year, which is just a little better than what the
624	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Yukon got, but not much. I got a wire from the chairman of the industrial development council in my province who wanted to know what that $450,000 was for because he could not find a trace of it. . He thought it must be for airport buildings or something. I have not been able to get a break-down of it as yet. This is a situtation which concerns me very much.
Hon. members will recall that during the last war the population of the prairie provinces and of some of the maritime provinces dropped rather drastically. It was probably the worst in Saskatchewan. In 1939 Saskatchewan had 906,000 people, but because so many of our young men joined the services or had to come east to go into industry, by 1945 our population had dropped to 845,000, a net loss of 61,000 people. It is only within the last few years that those people have come back and we have recovered our population. According to the Canada Year Book our population is now 861,000.
If there is another war and the same process starts over again Saskatchewan is going to see its population depleted. If that process is repeated we are likely to see our province remain an agricultural province for the years to come. I ask the minister to use whatever industries we have. I hope that in the future this new department will be able to give us much more than we obtained in the first nine months.
There is only one other thing I should like to mention, that is the committee to go over defence expenditures. I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will not set up a special defence committee and I do hope that when the public accounts committee meets next Thursday they will go into defence expenditures, including the expenditures by this department, in some detail. I agree with other hon. members who have said that the interest of the country as a whole would certainly be served if that were done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a few minutes to emphasize a couple of points in connection with this matter while we have the ears of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who we all expect will head up this new department. It has been made clear that parliament as a whole will support this resolution and will also support the bill which will follow the resolution providing there is nothing objectionable in it.
The points of emphasis I wish to make have been made time and again on the floor of this house. Some hon. members may think that we have worn them threadbare. That is only


because we have lived such a large part of our lives either in times of actual war or in times when we have been concerned over the outbreak of war. Nevertheless, we should not forget the strong feeling in the minds of the Canadian people against profiteering, either in time of war or in connection with defence preparations.
I shall take a moment to repeat this emphasis because in addition to my own conviction about it, in addition to my feeling that it is the view of the Canadian people that we do not want profiteering in defence production, there is the fact that we have in the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) a man whose yea is yea and whose nay is nay. He is a man who, when he wants to get something done, gets it done. We know that, and I think there are probably members of the Liberal party who know that if he is against something they do not get it.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Since when?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Always open to reason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister will not spoil the characterization I am drawing of him because I am satisfied that if there is any attempt at profiteering, if there is any attempt at patronage in connection with defence preparations, we have in the Minister of Trade and Commerce the man to stand up and say no and, if I am not mixing my metaphors too much, the man to put his foot down.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What are you looking for?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am looking for a firm stand by the minister, and I am going to quote as an authority in support of the contention that we have got to watch this sort of thing none other than the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. This is a quotation that has been given to the house a good many times. In fact the volume of Hansard from which I am reading is well worn through members turning to this page. However, I think it is well to quote it again. Mr. King was speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne at the opening of the special war session in September, 1939. I well remember being a visitor in the south gallery and hearing his speech on that occasion. At page 22 of Hansard for September 8, 1939, Mr. King said:
I come to profiteering. I believe I have already stated in this house that I know of nothing in the world more contemptible than that any man should seek to profit from the sacrifices which others are making. And if the laws and other measures which this government may introduce and seek to enforce are not sufficiently strong to destroy anything in the nature of profiteering, X hope hon. members of this house will bring to our attention, in a way that will also bring it to the attention of this country, what we ought to do to achieve that all-important end. There are some things that are very difficult

ol accomplishment. Unfortunately human nature has its weak and its bad sides as well as its strong and good sides. Sometimes it is very difficult to cope effectively with the underworld and its methods. But let me say this: I care not who the individual may be, how respectable in his own eyes or in the eyes of others he may appear, or what position he may hold; if in this crisis he seeks to profiteer he belongs to the underworld and should be treated as one of those who menace all that is sacred in human relations.
I have other quotations but I shall not take the time of the house to give them. Notably there are remarks of the late Ian Mackenzie at the time that he was piloting through the house the bill that -established the defence purchasing board in March, 1939. If I may paraphrase him, he at that time made statements similar to those of Mr. King, namely, that the government was absolutely against profiteering in time of war or in a time when the nation was preparing its defences.
As the government knows, at one time there was on the statute books what was known as the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act. It was passed in 1939, and contained a clause, well known to all members of the house, known as the 5 per cent clause limiting profits to that figure. Hon. members know that when the Department of Munitions and Supply Act was passed the provisions of that clause were superseded, and in June of last year another act was passed, namely, the Defence Supplies Act of 1950, which superseded entirely the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act.
That means that no clear-cut profit limiting legislation is now on the statute books. We have to depend for the limitation of profits and for steps to prevent profiteering in defence contracts upon the government itself, and we have to depend in particular upon the minister who will head this department. Therefore I have taken a few moments to read to him again the statement which his former leader made in the house on September 8, 1939. Not only did the former prime minister speak for all of us with regard to profiteering, but he did likewise with respect to the question of patronage. I quote again from the late prime minister's speech on September 8, 1939, at page 23 of Hansard for that special session. Mr. King said:
Then there is the matter of patronage, of favouritism. May I say this to my own following in this House of Commons:	If any of you desire to have
persons given positions, in connection with this war, simply because they are favourites of yours; if primarily for such a reason you want to have anyone given some special post, keep away from me, for I will never listen to you. I say the same to every hon. member of this house, and I say it not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of the government. We want no favouritism in this war. We want the name of this government and this country to be honourably sustained, and the man
Defence Production Act who seeks to profit indirectly by having his relatives or friends gain this contract or get that commission simply because they are among his favourites is no true friend of this administration.
As hon. members know, I am not fully satisfied that in the general conduct of affairs in this country it can be said that this government has forgotten the word "patronage"; there are too many evidences of it. However, I am not going to speak now of the practice of that art as this government carries it on in the general affairs of the country, which I deplore. But I do ask that the words of the late prime minister be taken to heart certainly so far as defence contracts and preparations for the defence of Canada are concerned. The minister who will head this department should put that paragraph on his office desk as a motto which I hope he will observe without fail.
I wish to express just one other thought and then I shall take my seat. During the discussion in September, 1939, with respect to the setting up of the department of munitions and supply, the question of the relationship between armaments and munitions on the one hand and the general economy of the country on the other was also discussed. I hope that there will be the most effective co-ordination between the work of this department, in so far as it is concerned with defence contracts, and economic policy generally. What I want to say was again said so well by the late Mr. King that perhaps the best thing for me to do is to quote him. Here again I shall read from Hansard for the special session of September, 1939. At page 172 Mr. King said:
Furthermore the experience of the last war-
Of course, he was referring to world war I; that has to be said because now the words "last war" mean world war II.
has clearly shown that the problem of securing armaments and munitions cannot be separated from the general economic organization of the country. For example, if too much energy and material is thrown into the manufacture of munitions, some other industry equally essential to the national effort may be crippled. In order to prevent such a situation arising, the governmental body must have power, not merely over the production of munitions themselves, but over production of related supplies, if a proper balance is to be maintained, and the most effective use made of our varied resources.
I know that the government is conscious of the fact that this is not a period of actual warfare. That is revealed in the nature of the other bill before us in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), Bill 24. The government is anxious to restrict, to some extent at any rate, the powers that it asks parliament to give it because this is only a period of defence preparation rather than actual war. Because of that the government

Defence Production Act is reluctant to exercise to the full such controls as were exercised over the economy during the last war. But my contention is that, in a time like this when we are upsetting the economy by the extent to which we are going in for defence production, it is important for the government to think about all those other things, the general price level, the extent to which homes are needed, and all the other things that are necessary to maintain the national effort and to maintain our national morale. I urge upon the minister who will head up this department to think in terms not only of actual war materials that need to be produced, but to think in terms of the economic picture as a whole, to attempt to guide and control it where necessary in the best interests of all our people and in the best interests of the country.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce deal with the questions I raised?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe it will be much simpler, Mr. Chairman, to deal with them when we have the bill before us. Then we cam discuss them in an orderly way as they refer to the various clauses in the bill.
A point that my friend was making that Vancouver is handicapped in delivering to central stores in Ottawa is, of course, true. Vancouver would be handicapped to a still greater extent if Toronto could compete for deliveries in Vancouver, eliminating the freight rates. The production of this country has developed under a system of freight rates. There are certain territories which are economic for certain areas of the country, and certain areas which are uneconomic. I think my friend will find that certain sections would be under a greater handicap in competing for war orders if the question of freight were eliminated than is the case under the present system. My officers have studied the situation, and that is the conclusion to which they have come.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any way of preventing the manufacturer in the east from taking advantage of the freight rate to Vancouver, which was certainly done in this particular case? He just added on most of the freight rate from Vancouver to Ottawa, and was still able to get the contract because it was lower than the Vancouver price plus freight. There should be some way of stopping that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know what the commodity was, but it may have been a commodity in which only firms in Vancouver, Ottawa and Toronto can compete.


Howard Charles Green: It was brooms.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Brooms are only made in two places. Perhaps our buyers were not very skilful in getting the price down. Ordinarily, there is enough competition in the locality to make sure that no sum that is not essential to the production is added into the cost. I would not take the broom situation as typical, as I do not think there are many products in that category.
The hon. member mentioned the subject of dispersal, and sometimes that can be accomplished. We were successful in doing quite a bit of it in the last war. For instance, explosives plants were dispersed in various parts of the country. I made very sure that they did not locate one at the head of the lakes, because I do not like the sort of plant that has no future. A good many parts of the country, however, were keen to get them, and did get them. I succeeded in locating the first big plant in Alberta to use natural gas, that is the Alberta nitrogen plant. It has had a successful post-war life, and is today an important part of the economy of Alberta.
Ordinarily putting a factory down in a small town in a distant locality involves serious problems. Suppose, for example, we built a factory employing 5,000 people in the town of Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, a beautiful town and well located for most purposes. It would mean building houses for 5,000 families, and transporting people from other parts of Canada to that locality. It can be done sometimes, but if you expect an industry of that kind to have any post-war life you have to make sure it can compete on reasonable terms with similar industries in large centres of population. Those facts have to be taken into account. It is not a matter of saying that we are going to build a war plant, so we will build it in the maritimes because they have not a similar war plant. Unless it is the type of industry that would be able to live in peacetime, that would not be a kindness to the maritimes.


An hon. Member:: Shipbuilding.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Shipbuilding was conducted in the maritimes, quite a bit of it. In peacetime it does not compete very well, unfortunately. An attempt was made to disperse industries. A good deal of study has gone into the situation. We have dispersed industries, and in some cases perhaps did not use good judgment in doing so, because some have not done so well since the war ended. We try to take into consideration every factor, and only go into the big cities such as Toronto and Montreal as a last resort.


Howard Charles Green: How serious a factor is the possibility of an atomic bomb attack? From what one reads, and from the opinions one

forms, bombing attacks would seem to be a serious factor now, more so than during the second world war. I should like to know whether the government considers such to be the case? If the minister will recall, my remarks concerning dispersal were based on the danger of attack on certain centres. Apparently the people in the United States are going to considerable expense to disperse their industries, presumably even some of the industries already established. Does the minister consider that danger is an important factor in determining what plans should be followed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would hesitate, Mr. Chairman, to say very much about planning an economy that would contemplate an atomic bomb attack. Atomic bombs are tremendously expensive. There are only a few of them, and not likely to be too many. It is the view of military experts that it would take a very glittering target to attract an attack by an atomic bomb. They believe that if atomic bombs were to be used in warfare there are very few targets in Canada that might possibly attract them. How to disperse industries against that sort of threat is a problem. The industry itself might form another target no matter where it was located.
I doubt if atomic bombs would be used simply to kill the civilian population. That is hardly a strategical target, but I must confess that I do not know of any effort in the United States to disperse existing industries in order to get them away from the threat of attack by atomic bombs.


Howard Charles Green: The minister does not consider that is a very important factor?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not see how it can be cured. Atomic bombs are delivered from the air. I do not know where you could put a big plant so that it would be safe from air attack by atomic bombs.


Howard Charles Green: I wished to ask the minister about the use of the iron ore for the development of Canada's steel industry. One other point had to do with the methods of checking expenditure by the new department. Can he deal with those two points?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada's iron ore is for anyone who wants to make steel with it. Prior to and during the last war we obtained our iron ore from Michigan. That ore has been sadly depleted. We have opened up large deposits in Canada, or are in process of opening them up. That ore will be made available to the steel makers of the world. I do not think we can close the door. These Canadian sources make it easier to develop the production of iron and steel in Canada than would be the case were the ore not available in
Defence Production Act Canada. But the development of Canada's steel industry is dependent upon a great number of factors, the principal of which probably is a market for the product. But certainly the fact that we have iron ore will assist our existing steel industry, and any future steel industry that may wish to establish itself in this country, to make a success of their enterprise.
As to the control of profits-


Howard Charles Green: I meant not only the control of profits but also the prevention of waste; that is, the checking of expenditures by the department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We intend to follow the same procedure that we followed during the last war. We will have continuous treasury audits in the department. We propose to bring in experienced men from industry and experienced purchasing agents to direct the work; and to establish standard contract forms similar to those used in the department in the last war and which we will use in the next. All effort will be designed to eliminate waste or inefficiency. All I can say is that I think we made a fair job of eliminating waste and -inefficiency in the last war, and we shall try to do as well in the new department. The methods of the last war will be exactly the same in the present crisis, as I see it.


Howard Charles Green: What about this proposed establishment of an aluminum industry in northern British Columbia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a private-enterprise undertaking. I understand that the project is making good progress and that certain contracts have already been placed. I judge that the work is proceeding as rapidly as can be arranged under the circumstances.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: A few
minutes ago the minister made an interesting statement which aroused my curiosity. He said that there were possibly seven locations in Canada which might be the victims of atomic attack. Does he care to dissipate that curiosity of mine by telling us where those places are?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I do not.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I should like to say a
few words about this matter of decentralization. The minister has just said he thought they had eliminated waste and inefficiency in the last war. I have a shining example that I should like to bring to his attention. I agree with some of his remarks with regard to the difficulty of establishing industry at some points, but there are a great many factors to be taken into account.

Defence Production Act The minister may remember what happened in connection with processing plants for processing oil from flaxseed. Practically all of the flax grown in this country is grown in the prairie provinces. Despite the fact that we had pointed out this situation to officials under the minister during the last war, a considerable amount of government funds was provided for assistance in building and developing processing plants in this province during those years. Hon. members can see what that would mean. It meant the transportation of all of this flaxseed from the prairie provinces eastward, cluttering up an already-overburdened transportation system, and complicating the manpower problem. After the flax was processed, many of the by-products were shipped back to the same areas from which the original seed was shipped. I just mention that as one concrete example. I would not ask the minister, as he suggested, to go out to Qu'Appelle or some other beautiful little spot and spend a great deal of money in setting up some industry which would be of no use after the anticipated war period was over. But there are such features as that to which I have referred which should be taken into' consideration. It would be distinctly to the advantage of this nation as a whole if those oil processing plants that were built in Ontario here had been built somewhere in the west; for instance, at Winnipeg or Moose Jaw or some place like that, right in the heart of the area where the flaxseed is grown. It is matters of that nature that I think these officials should keep in mind.
I was amazed the other day to learn-and I am not being too critical at this stage- that of the total amount of the contracts let already in the past nine months with regard to defence purchasing, contracts for 80 per cent of it have been let within the two principal provinces of Canada. That is a high percentage, and I think it is out of all proportion. As I say, at this stage I am not being too critical. I know that things are being done in a hurry and that the whole scheme has not yet been developed. But I want to plead with the minister and his officials under him that they do not repeat the mistakes made during the past war during these next few years of preparation which we all sincerely hope is not for war but for the prevention of war. I would ask them to keep in mind the example I have just given. That was a terrific waste not only of money but of transportation, manpower and everything else. In such cases as that I hope the minister will see his way clear to expend money in the prairie provinces when a case arises such as that I [Mr. Eoss (Souris) .1

have mentioned, and in other provinces for such other matters as may seem desirable there.
With regard to atomic bombing, may I say that I think it is important that these industries be scattered so that 'one bomb will not disrupt the whole supply of a given commodity, as a result of one good shot. All these things must be kept in mind. I hope there will be a greater effort toward decentralization. The effort that is put forth from now on will be of interest to everyone in this nation, and I hope the government will try to carry it out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot allow my hon. friend's statement about the crushing of flax to go without comment. I doubt if there was five cents of government money spent in providing facilities for the crushing of flax in the province of Ontario during the last war. If there was, I wish he would tell me where. I know that a new plant for crushing flax was built at Moose Jaw, at Saskatoon and at the head of the lakes, involving large investments. I know there were plants built in Ontario, but not one cent of government money was put in any of them so far as I am aware.


James Arthur Ross: I think it was loans.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James Arthur Ross: I will check on the matter.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: From what the minister has said, I am still not clear as to what government policy is in connection with dispersing these contracts among industries that are already in existence. He has pointed out the difficulties of setting up new industries at some points, but what about industries which are already in existence in the maritimes or in the western provinces? Is the minister's department making any particular effort to see that they are given their share of these contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We try to see that the plants in every part of Canada are busy, and I think they now are busy. I know that the flour mills in Saskatchewan are busy. We buy flour from them and so does everyone else. I know that many plants in the maritimes are busy. We put radar contracts and aircraft contracts there. If my hon. friend knows a plant that is capable of making the type of things we are buying, and it is not busy, I wish he would let me know; we should be glad to look into the situation. But make sure it is not busy.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I should like to pursue that matter. The minister has thrown out a suggestion. I have a clipping here from the

Defence Production Act
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of this past Saturday in which the premier of the province is reported to have made this statement:
Failure of business concerns in this province to receive their share of defence contracts was resulting not only in failure of a business activity to increase, but in an actual decrease due to shortage of essential materials such as steel.
He went on to say that:
In the period ending January 11, there were 12,050 unemployed, an increase of 958 over the same period of last year.
If there are certain industries-in my own city there is a textile plant which is not government-owned. It is privately owned. They have been trying to get contracts for uniforms or army shirts, or something of that kind for six months, without success. They have been unsuccessful in getting one single item, and they have had to lay off their employees because of lack of work. Would not a plant like that be of some use to the department, particularly when it is ready to make these shirts and uniforms? They say they are competitive. Is there some reason why they cannot get some of the contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 do not know of any reason.
Generally speaking, the primary textile industry is working at full capacity, and not able to fill the demand. I presume that this is a secondary industry, which would manufacture cloth into uniforms. There is lots of work going. A representative of that firm had better come down to Ottawa to see what the trouble is. Contracts are usually placed on the basis of tenders, but there should be work enough to go around.


William Joseph Browne: My attention was taken by the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce only a few moments ago. He said that there were only seven centres that would be worthy of the atomic bomb, and that the bombs were very expensive and hard to make. This morning I was reading an article in the New York Times of February 22, so I sent for the paper. In a lecture given in New York before the civil defence committee on Wednesday night by Dr. John R. Dunning, dean of engineering, Columbia university, under the heading, "Atom bomb output in the 10,000's seen," the following appears. If I were permitted to read two paragraphs it would give us a picture of how great the danger may be:
Dr. John R. Dunning, dean of engineering at Columbia university and one of the country's leading nuclear physicists, declared yesterday that the production of tens of thousands of atomic bombs was "perfectly feasible and possible."
His remark was made in a talk to business executives and city officials at 500 Park avenue, recruiting headquarters for the office of civil defence.
He explained later that this production would be possible if the country was willing to spend the money needed and to exert the required industrial effort.
That is as far as the atomic bomb is concerned, but generally speaking surely the minister must be aware that as a result of the experience of the continental countries in Europe during the last war it was agreed that the decentralization of industry was necessary; not only desirable, but necessary. We do not know in what form an attack is likely to come. It may not come at all by aeroplane. It may come by some other method such as the German invasion of the Netherlands or the German invasion of Norway. Ships may come into different ports with these atomic bombs in their holds and they may set them off right in the midst of the great centralized industries that we have, causing damage from which the country may take a long time to recover.


Mr. Hees:: At the present time we have
arrived, in this twilight war, at the stage where our troops are now in action, and we have embarked on a program to spend $5 billion and to double our armed forces. The people of the country are interested to know just how we stand today with this very large and important program. I do not think anybody expects the government to have a detailed plan at the present time of how that $5 billion is to be spent; but the government has been working on these ideas for some time. It is a great deal of money, and how it is to be spent is of vital importance to everybody in the country.
Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce now, or very soon, give the house an idea of just how we stand today in regard to this program? What are the government's plans in the making? We should have that information so that the people can be advised of where we are going. It is vitally important to them.
I heard today that a report came over the radio that we are to make certain types of army vehicles. It seems to me that that kind of information should first of all be given to hon. members in this house. If possible they should be advised before the press and the radio.
Will the minister give us some idea as to what the plans are, for instance, for producing planes, tanks, vehicles, guns and small arms? As I say, I do not expect detailed plans, because I do not suppose that is possible at the present time. But there must be some thinking, some preliminary plans along that line. We should like to be told whether at the present time we are planning

Defence Production Act on making these kinds of war materials. Either we are or we are not. What are the plans so far? What types of guns have we in mind, and is there any way of telling when we expect to be in production on them?
The information I am asking for is requested in all sincerity. It is not in any way an attempt to put the minister on the spot, or to embarrass him. If there are plans which the government honestly have not yet decided on, of course we cannot expect to be told, but I think the people are vitally interested in finding out what they can as to where this tremendous program is going at this date.
If we can have some sort of an interim report on these matters it would be very much appreciated by hon. members and by the people throughout the country as a whole.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of National
Defence gave a comprehensive and I think a very detailed analysis of the plans of the armed services for weapons. I tried to cover in a general way the purchasing arrangements to back up those plans. Hon. members will understand that the planning, strategic planning, is not done by the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is done by the army, navy and air force, and we simply execute orders that are sent to us by those services. Perhaps the Department of Defence Production will do a little more than that. It will have funds of its own, and perhaps it will do some planning, at least of requirements. I can give my hon. friend a list of contracts and an analysis of where each contract stands, but I doubt whether that will throw very much light on the subject. I suggest that if he cares to know about aeroplanes we will be glad to tell him about aeroplanes. If he wants to know whether we are building tanks or not we can tell him that; but to give any detailed break-down of the contracts that are presently-we cannot discuss contracts in the negotiation stage without destroying the ability to negotiate.
I will try to meet his request in the discussion on the bill.


George Harris Hees: I am not asking the minister for any detailed report on contracts. That naturally is unreasonable. But, for instance, on the question of tanks, I for one have no idea whether we plan to make tanks in this country, or not; whether we plan, for instance, to make any kind of vehicles in this country, or not. I heard a report that we plan to make jeeps and some sort of trailer vehicle. But that came from outside the house. I for one have heard no reports of a definite nature on vehicles. There was one report on a certain type of gun, but I have not heard anything on small arms.

If we are to make the American type of vehicles, weapons, tanks and so on it would be most interesting to hon. members and to the country as a whole to know it. After all, they are the materials which the men who are going to fight the battles of this country in the future are going to use. It is most important that we know generally what the government have in mind. I am not asking for anything in the way of a detailed report on contracts. That is unreasonable, but I think the other questions are reasonable. I should like a brief general answer if I can get it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be glad to make it on the bill.
Mr. Nose worthy: The minister will be glad to know that I have those percentage figures straightened out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Good. Who helped you?


Joseph William Noseworthy: In 1944, the year which I was quoting, the three maritime provinces had 7-8 per cent of Canada's wartime industrial employment. The figure of 7-8 per cent of the total was located in the maritime provinces; 71-4 per cent in the two central provinces; 11-3 per cent in the prairie provinces; and 9-5 per cent in British Columbia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those figures have nothing to do with the statement my hon. friend made. My hon. friend gave a statement of the men in war industries in 1939 and again in 1945. He said the increase was 7-8 per cent. I pointed out that he was giving corresponding figures for all the provinces. I said it was 72 per cent increase for the maritime provinces, and is the largest percentage increase of any part of Canada.


Mr. Wright:: I have a question I should like to ask, but perhaps it should be asked of an economist rather than the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has indicated it is the intention of the government to give incentive to industry to increase production through allowing accelerated depreciation. That was used during the last war, and it worked very well. But at the time we were using that form of incentive we had strict controls in this country. It seems to me accelerated depreciation is a form of inflation, and that it does increase the inflationary tendency in a country when accelerated depreciation is given on plant equipment. Immediately the money given becomes available for reinvestment.
We are not at war now, and we hope we will not be at war; but we will be going through a period of perhaps five or ten years in which we will have to increase our production. It seems to me if we are going to use

accelerated depreciation, unless we are careful in the amount of it we use we will certainly increase the inflationary tendency in the country. Am I not right when I say that accelerated depreciation has an inflationary effect on our economy?


Mr, Howe:: I presume my hon. friend is quite right. As he said, it is a question which perhaps he should have asked an economist.
I would say offhand that he is correct, and that there is some inflationary effect due to the fact that capital investment is returned under accelerated depreciation more rapidly that would be the case under normal depreciation, and is therefore available for reinvestment or for spending in other ways.
However, I am hopeful that accelerated depreciation will not be a factor in the coming period to the extent that it was during the war. The reason it was a factor during the war was that we had a great deal of building to do, the building of new plants, and their equipment. In this war we start with a very strong industry. To date we have had no provision for accelerated depreciation, nor have we made arrangements for capital investments to any very large extent. We did make arrangements for capital investments in the case of a jet engine plant, and perhaps in one or two other plants. But, frankly, we hope to do our job depending very largely upon existing industry.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to commend the minister, in whom a great many people in this country have confidence. I would point out, as has been pointed out earlier today, that there is a strong feeling in the maritime provinces, one which is pretty well shared throughout Canada, that we did not receive a fair distribution of war work in the last war.
I do not know where the hon. member for York South got his figures, but the figures I have, compiled during the last war, show that the war expenditures in the maritime provinces at that time totalled $380 million, whereas those in Quebec were more than $5 billion, in Ontario more than $5 billion, and a comparatively small amount in the western provinces.
There is still some misgiving in the maritime provinces. We feel there should be a fairer distribution, and feel strongly that industry should be dispersed, for the purpose of safety. There is not full employment in Nova Scotia at the present time, a condition which I believe applies in all the maritime provinces. Many people are leaving that province looking for employment. They leave each week for central Canada, and their families follow.
Defence Production Act
That is not a proper or healthy condition. During the last war the government had the greatest opportunity in the history of Canada to make a fair distribution of industrial plants in the maritime provinces. As I have said before, they never had industries in the west, but in Nova Scotia at the time of confederation and after there were scores of industries which were purchased by central Canadian interests or were forced to close. It is clear therefore that we have suffered greatly, and no proper steps have been taken to correct matters or give us a fair share of war work.
Another matter about which I should like to speak briefly-and I have discussed it before in the house-concerns crown companies. In the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance-I cannot say which year-it was stated that $85,700,000 of capital expenditures had been made for crown industries, and that every dollar of that expenditure had been made in central Canada. Perhaps I should put it this way, that not one dollar of that enormous government expenditure was made in my part of Canada.
This is a further indication of the unfairness we have had to suffer during those years. I should like to have from the minister a statement of the contracts let up to the present time, the total amount for all Canada and the value of those let in Nova Scotia andi the other maritime provinces.
It is true that we have had considerable production of some of the heavy metals, including iron and steel. Unfortunately, however, most of that production was shipped from our province in the crudest and rawest form, to be refined in other parts of Canada, chiefly Quebec and Ontario. Rough, crude steel and iron worth $50 or $60 a ton is brought to central Canada and processed into production valued at hundreds or thousands of dollars a ton. Nearly all the war plants and barracks in Nova Scotia were demolished, while in central Canada peacetime industries were established.
Conditions such as that should not be permitted. The people in my part of Canada believe we have not had fair treatment. I have here a statement from the maritime board of trade, following its meeting last August, which states:
The executive committee of the maritime board of trade, composed of representatives of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, has passed a resolution calling on the federal government to decentralize its rearmament program and give this region of Canada a fair share of munitions contracts.
It is earnestly to be hoped that authorities will heed this resolution and that this part of the country will get a better deal than was the case
632	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
during the second world war, when industrial expansion was concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. The policy of putting nearly all war plants in those two provinces was extravagant and harmful.
We in Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces are proud of the industrial headway made by Ontario and Quebec. We feel however that more should have been done for the maritimes, and that because of confederation itself, and the administration during the last war, we have been unfairly treated.	*
I make a special appeal to the minister and would ask for his assurance that his department will see to it that this does not recur.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend is
exaggerating a bit when he says that not one dollar was expended by crown companies in the maritimes. I can think of the wartime shipbuilding company which built a new shipyard at Pictou. Also the large investment that was made in the shipyard at Halifax. A floating drydock was built and installed there. I think also of the crown company that looked after aviation matters and built a plant at Halifax. That plant did good work in the war and is doing a good job today. Fortunately it turned out to be a sound civilian enterprise. The Aircraft Crown Company built extensive aircraft facilities at other points in the maritimes, including a plant at Moncton which did not do as well as a peacetime enterprise.
I think if we combed our minds we could think of other crown companies which had made considerable investment in the maritime provinces. I can assure the hon. member that nothing gets quicker attention than the possibility of putting a plant in the maritime provinces, unless it is the possibility of putting a plant in the prairie provinces. We promote plants that seem to have that'possibility very carefully.
I can tell the hon. member that the only time I stretched my conscience in administering the emergency exchange control legislation was when I saw the possibility of getting two or three plants started in the maritime provinces. There was one plant to make washing machines in connection with which I stretched our regulations to the limit. We do keep in mind the desirability of building up areas which are not heavily industrialized, and I can assure my hon. friend that we will continue to follow that policy.


Percy Chapman Black: I appreciate the assurance given by the minister. It is my understanding that the figures I referred to were in connection with crown companies set up or continued after the war. I cannot say offhand what budget speech it was-I think either 1947 or 1948. The shipbuilding and 

other companies he has just referred to operated during the war and their activities are included in the recapitulation I have given of $380 million in the maritime provinces during the entire period of the war and $10 billion in central Canada.


Mr. Gibson:: The other day the leader of
the Social Credit party stated in the house that the premier of Alberta had suggested that if the minister felt that gas was required on the Pacific coast for war or strategic purposes and if he were asked for it he would allow it to be exported. Does the minister think that the time has arrived when he should ask for that permission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the time has arrived,
as it has for some time, when the premier of Alberta should make up his own mind whether he wants to export gas. I can assure him he will never receive a request from me, although I pass on to him any request for war export that I receive from reliable sources.


John Lambert Gibson: It has been suggested that a
provincial government might put an embargo on the export of iron ore and I should like to know if the minister would have authority to override such an embargo?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I certainly would not attempt to override an export embargo put on by a province. I assume the way it would be put on would be by controlling production within the province. A province could hardly put a ban on export but it could prevent the mining of ore within the province. Alberta has control over export of its natural gas through having control of the wells that produce the natural gas.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to second what the hon. member for Cumberland has said with reference to industry in the maritime provinces. I was amazed to hear the minister say a few moments ago that industry in the maritime provinces was working to capacity. I am sure that all hon. members from the maritimes know that our young people have been leaving by hundreds during the last few months to get employment in other parts of Canada.
Our chief complaint is that industries were established in the central provinces during the last war which are in operation today. Very few industries were started in the maritimes and the result is that today Ontario and Quebec are in a much better position to carry on than are the other provinces. I do hope that the minister and his new department will investigate carefully the situation in the maritime and the western provinces.

For example, we have splendid shoe factories in the maritime provinces and we could make clothing. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra just spoke about brooms. We have one of the oldest and finest broom factories in Canada which has been operating for years,


Clarence Decatur Howe: They do not make brooms; they make brushes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They used to make brooms.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They do not now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then with regard to shipbuilding, there is no reason why we should not get a large proportion of the necessary shipbuilding. The hon. member for Peace River referred to the shortage of sulphur. Probably the minister knows that there is a possibility of producing sulphur in New Brunswick and this should be investigated.
I intend to have more to say when the bill is up for second reading. I do not know whether the minister reads the Saint John Tele graph-Journal, but for the last seven or eight issues that paper has had on its front page an editorial calling attention to the fact that we have been overlooked. It has given facts and figures so there is no guesswork about it. When the new department is set up I think the minister should give more attention to the maritime provinces,


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Following the last war there was considerable interest in our part of the country in the disposal of salvage. The waterworks system which had been set up at the military camp at Dawson Creek was later given to the municipality at a very nominal figure. That was appreciated by the citizens. But the farmers and settlers felt that they were not given an opportunity to share in some of the other bargains that were offered. I think some provision should be made for the disposal of salvage so that local people will have an opportunity to share in it.


Mr. Gillis:: I want to jog the minister's memory on one particular item. In answering the hon. member for Cumberland he stated that a number of crown companies had operated in the maritimes during the war. Those companies were simply war set-ups. As soon as the war was over they disappeared. There was one particular plant set up during the war that was permitted to disappear entirely after the war. I think that was very shortsighted. We should have that plate mill at Sydney now. This country normally imports 90 per cent of its steel plate from the United States. The minister did a good job in putting a shipbuilding plant at Pictou. Then the minister wanted steel plates, and he
Defence Production Act took a mill that was equipped in the first war at a cost of $11 million to the taxpayers of Canada. The internal workings of that mill were brought to Ojibway falls, Ontario.
At the time of the second world war the minister will remember very well that he and 1 had a lot of discussion with respect to reequipping the mill. The minister re-equipped it at a cost of around $7,500,000. Therefore the taxpayers of Canada paid approximately $19,500,000 for the mill in the two wars. In world war II it did an excellent job, employed over 600 men and turned out steel plate for shipbuilding purposes. After that war was over I discussed the question with the minister many times in the house and said that we should keep the mill in operation. At the time the attitude of the minister was that we were not building ships any more through crown companies and therefore there was no market for the plate. The mill went out of production.
Now we are going to start to build ships again and we require plate. If the federal government did not want to use the mill after world war II I think the provincial government, if they were interested in maintaining industry in that province, should have operated it as a crown company on a provincial scale. It was a modern mill, fully staffed with competent workers, and there is an unlimited market in this country for steel plate. Nevertheless the mill disappeared again, and I am informed that the internal workings were sold this time to Czechoslovakia. So far as I know they are behind the iron curtain doing a job for Uncle Joe. There are no guts in the mill any more.
The minister is going to need such a mill again. I should like him to give the matter some consideration this time. I know that he was very reasonable when he was disposing of it. He said it could be sold or the province could form a crown company to operate it, but nobody was interested. Therefore the mill is in the condition it was back in 1917, a skeleton of a building with nothing inside. When there is an unlimited market in Canada for that type of production I think it was very shortsighted on our part, while we were just having a short armistice arising out of the last war, to dismantle such a plant.
If the minister decides to re-equip it this time I hope that he will do so on the same basis as he operated the arsenals. I hope he will consider- it as a plant necessary for war in the event of war and maintain it as a crown company under federal government management. I intend to have something to say on second reading of the bill but I wanted to say that while the minister was on the subject of crown companies. This is one plant

Private Bills
that could serve a useful purpose in peacetime by providing a product that is needed and of which we are short. It is definitely needed at the present time when we are facing possibly another war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this discussion could take place much better on the bill. We are keeping the Prime Minister in the house. It is now five minutes to six. Why not pass the resolution?


Mr. Poulioi:: I want to say one word and it will be passed, if you wish. There was one thing that struck me with respect to the memory of the minister. When the hon. member for Royal was speaking he mentioned a concern that was manufacturing brooms and the minister interjected at once that they were making brushes. I think it is pretty good for a man like the minister, who has so much work to do, to remember that one concern in the maritimes does not make brooms but only makes brushes. As the minister is in such a good mood I shall remind him that Riviere du Loup and Temiscouata county are on the way to the maritimes, and I hope he will not forget those places.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Si. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 77, respecting the Department of Defence Production.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Isabella Potts Younger Ayton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Margaret Alice McDermid Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Jacqueline Moquin Verner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Ruth Chernofsky Shaffer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Florence Lachovitz Michael.-Mr. Winkler. _
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Eugenia Jean Diakonuk Cuthbertson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Ruth Moffatt Bell Lansing.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 32, for the relief of Kurt Roberts, otherwise known as Kurt Rosenbaum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Margaret Stevenson Erskine Withenshaw. - Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Cecile Duguay Quenneville.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No, 35, for the relief of Margarette Marie Hyduk Towstuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	36,	for the	relief	of Joseph
Maurice Fernando Lemieux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	37,	for the	relief	of Donald
Benedict Cullen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Valeda Ardell Derick Thorley.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.



TRADERS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (for Mr. Robinson) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 39, to incorporate the Traders General Insurance Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. A. H. Jeffery (London) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 40, to change the name of the Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I could hope that this bill would pass second reading as quickly as the other bills that have been before us since eight o'clock, I would not rise to speak on it. I believe, however, there are others who intend to speak on the measure, so I should like-to take a few minutes to introduce it. I would not want anyone to think I am

Industrial Relations
not hopeful that at some stage of the game this bill will pass. On the 17th of June, 1948, the matter covered by this bill was discussed by the House of Commons in committee of the whole. A vote was taken on it, and I regret to say that it was defeated. There were thirty-five members of the House of Commons, however, who voted for it. The next time this measure was voted upon was on May 30, 1950, at which time I had presented a bill identical to the one now before the house. On that occasion forty-five mem-. bers voted for it. With an increase such as that every time it comes up, it will not be long until there will be a majority for it. The increase in the number of supporters for the bill, the last time it was voted on, came mainly from the ranks of the Progressive Conservative party and the Liberal party. We welcomed their support. I hope we will have still further support from these two parties when this bill comes to a vote, whether that be tonight or on another occasion when public bills are before the house.
May I take just a moment to explain the bill. When introducing it on former occasions,
I have not done that, at least not to any length, because those of us who are used to these labour matters take it for granted that its provisions are known. From some questions members have put to me, I have found that is not universally the case. This bill would add to the labour code what is known as the voluntary revocable check-off. The word "check-off" refers to trade union dues. If and when this bill becomes law, it will provide that, with respect to trade unions certified under the national labour code, it will be possible for trade union dues, under certain conditions, to be deducted from employees' wages, by their employers, and turned over on behalf of the employees to the trade unions concerned. After all, that is a common practice with respect to other matters such as unemployment insurance, income tax deductions, Red Cross and other charitable contributions. We all recall that during the war victory loan deductions were made in the same way, and I believe that Canada savings bond deductions are also made in that manner. The proposal is a simple one, merely requesting that trade union dues be deducted under certain conditions in the same way that these other deductions are made.
I would point out, as hon. members are aware, that this is something that labour has been seeking for a long time; not only labour but all the major political parties have indicated their support either directly for the check-off or in general terms for the principle of union security. While there are various
ways in which to maintain it, this is a minimum form of union security, namely provision for the check-off of union dues. I would also point out that the well known Rand formula which came out of the Ford dispute back in 1946 included the check-off. The Rand formula provided that in a plant where a union is certified to represent the employees, while all employees were not required to become members of the union, they were nevertheless required to contribute to its upkeep, which to Mr. Justice Rand seemed only fair in view of what the union was doing for all the employees. As part of that award, which is known as the Rand formula, the check-off of trade union dues was included.
Another point I wish to make is that this provision is included in the statutes of a number of provinces. I endeavoured to get together copies of the labour code of as many provinces as I could, so that in making a statement of that kind I would be able to document it. I have in my hand the labour code of three provinces in which the checkoff is definitely included. It is in the Trade Union Act of the province of Saskatchewan. It is in the act respecting the right of employees to organize, and providing for mediation, conciliation and the arbitration of industrial disputes, in the province of Nova Scotia. It is in the British Columbia act respecting the right of employees to organize, and providing for the mediation, conciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What year is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The one from British Columbia? 1947.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Surely. We are far ahead of you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The one from Nova Scotia that I have was also 1947. The one from Saskatchewan was 1944.


An hon. Member:: He did not hear you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said that the one from British Columbia was 1947 and the one from Saskatchewan was 1944. I am not suggesting that other provinces do not have that provision as well; I believe that two or three others do; but since there was not readily available any copy of the other statutes I thought I would not go any further than to indicate the ones I am sure of.
There is this wide degree of unanimity with regard to this principle of the checkoff of trade union dues. As I have said, the labour unions are for it. All political parties have said they are for it. The Rand formula contained a particularly strong argument for it; and a number of the provinces have already included it in their statutes. In

Industrial Relations
fact, I remember one occasion when this matter was up for debate previously, when a member from British Columbia, who was so accustomed to it in his province, expressed surprise that it was not already in the federal labour code. Since we are unanimous, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we should express that unanimity by writing it into our national labour code.
I may say that when the present labour code was before the industrial relations committee of this house in the session of 1948, that committee wrote the check-off into the labour code. That committee was one that gave serious and thoughtful consideration to the whole problem, and it seeme'd to those of us who were on the committee that the recommendation of the committee should be implemented by the house. When the bill came back to the house from that committee, to be considered in committee of the whole, it had in it the check-off provision in exactly the same words that are included in the bill which is now before the house. Unfortunately, a private member on the government side moved an amendment to delete that clause which the committee had written into the bill. After debate, when the vote was taken, that amendment carried and the check-off was struck out of the bill. But as I have already said, on that occasion 35 members of the House of Commons supported the check-off. That number rose to 45 last year, and it is my hope that it will not be long until there will be a majority for it.
I should point out that if this provision is written into the national labour code, as it is already written into a number of provincial labour codes, it will serve to make more harmonious and more satisfactory the relations between management and labour; and that is an objective upon which we all agree. It will serve to make labour feel that they are more definitely a part of the industrial picture in which they are engaged; and I suggest that anything that can contribute to a greater feeling of harmony and co-operation between labour and management is all to the good.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there has been circulated to a number of members of parliament-although one was not sent directly to me-a memorandum prepared by the Railway Association of Canada protesting against this bill. I would point out that the Railway Association of Canada represents the railway companies. A number of members have shown me their copy of this memorandum; and they will bear me out when I say that practically the only argument in it is the difficult bookkeeping it would impose upon the railways which would be affected by this bill. I think the answer to this argument is

obvious. It is strange that there are no audible complaints about unemployment insurance deductions, income tax deductions, Red Cross deductions, victory loan deductions, Canada savings bond deductions and all the rest. But when it comes to making deductions for trade union dues, a great fuss is raised about the bookkeeping problem. I suggest that that argument should not carry any weight with hon. members, but rather that the railway companies would be well advised to indicate their support of this measure as a means of increasing harmony between management and labour.
One other word and I shall sit down. This measure is described as the voluntary revocable check-off. By that certain conditions are indicated. The check-off of trade union dues can take place when this bill becomes law only in the case of unions certified under the labour code as we have it. Even after that the unions concerned will have to ask for the check-off of trade union dues. Still further, each individual employee who wants to have his trade union dues deducted will have to indicate that fact in writing. It will not be automatic. It will take place only if the individual employee, on his own, requests it. Finally, it is revocable in the sense that any employee who may have indicated his desire to have his dues checked off or deducted may revoke that request and withdraw from the arrangement previously made.
As I have already indicated, I suggest that this is a minimum form of something that all parties have indicated they support; it is something that is well supported by the arguments and evidence that I have presented tonight; and I hope that when the matter is fully discussed by hon. members and comes to a vote, this time the bill will pass and this provision will become part of our national labour code.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention tonight to speak at any great length on this bill. At the outset, however, it would probably be as well if I indicated that what I have to say is in support of it.
It is true that a certain percentage of trade unions with long craft union experience have always collected their own dues, and they will probably continue to do so. The reasons for that are many. In the craft unions there is a slightly different association with the members than there is in the industrial unions. Those who wish to continue to collect their own dues are still free to do so under the provisions of this bill. The bill merely seeks to reinstate, as has already been said,

in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act a clause which was removed therefrom in the draft stages after it had reached the stage of consideration by the committee of the whole. In my opinion, the workability of the provisions of the bill would be guaranteed by the fact that the bill recognizes, in the eighth line thereof, that a trade union would be requesting that right for an employee and, as has been said by the sponsor of the bill, not only the trade union itself but its members; and would be doing so in writing. It is true that at the present time any employee who wishes to have union dues or any other form of payment deducted from his wages and paid directly to the person or persons to whom it is due can do so by signifying in writing to his employer that such is his wish. Of course he would probably have to indicate that on each and every pay which came to him, and there have been instances where that has taken place. There have been occasions when that particular matter has been decided by the courts.
This is not new legislation. The principle involved in it is thoroughly familiar to every hon. member. I should like to draw attention to the fact that it is not an unmixed blessing. It has just as many advantages for the employer as it has for the employee. I shall not enumerate them, but among them might very well be listed the saving of time, the obviating of disruption of activities within the plant, and a general simplification of the fulfilment of contract terms; consequently more harmonious employer-employee relations. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without prolonging the discussion on this bill unduly, I just wish to say simply that it is my intention to support it. I hope that those hon. members who are now interested will carefully consider the advantages of amending the act to this extent, and thereby taking one more step toward country-wide employer-employee harmony.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: This bill has been discussed in years gone by at great length, and the sponsor has outlined it again tonight, although I felt that he clid not put his usual enthusiasm into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you like me to make my speech all over again?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I was interested to learn that the spokesman on labour matters for the official opposition is going to support the bill. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my pleasure, as Minister of Labour, that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has been chosen by her party as the official critic on matters pertaining to labour.
Industrial Relations
I have tried to approach this amendment with an open mind, regardless of all that has been said about it before, and regardless of whatever official attitude may have been taken toward it previously.
Therefore I have done some homework on the matter. But I am free to confess that I am not going to boast too much as to how much I have learned. I found it interesting, and I have found myself asking myself a number of questions with regard to the whole matter. For instance, in view of the fact that there is being worked out in Canada today a solid experience in labour-management collective bargaining, is there possibly a danger that the injection of a statutory obligation upon employers might throw out of balance factors which are essential in that collective bargaining?
We have heard much since last September. Since the railway strike many of us have had numerous letters about the evils of compulsions as applied to the delicate interplay of collective bargaining between employers and employees. Might not this bill, if it were made law, create just such an element of compulsion? These are just a few of the things that I have been asking myself.
When Bill No. 195, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, was before the House of Commons committee in 1948, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) moved an amendment. This amendment under certain conditions provided for the check-off of union dues by an employer, the violation of which would be considered as an unfair labour practice. The then minister of labour, the late Hon. Mr. Mitchell, objected to that proposal on the ground that he had studiously avoided putting in the bill matters that were normally regarded as subject to the collective bargaining process. And he always stood, as hon. members will recall, on that very solid piece of ground. He felt that such action at that time might invite a reaction similar to that which had then recently occurred in the United States; that is to say, the Senate and the House of Representatives adopted the Taft-Hartley act, wiping out many of the features favourable to labour in the Wagner act. I should just like to read a few words of what the late Hon. Mr. Mitchell said at that time as reported in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on industrial relations at page 242. He and the hon. member for

Industrial Relations
any country in the world. In fact, Canada is far in advance of most countries," said Mr. Maclnnis.
"The Canadian government does not consider industrial disputes a matter for labour and management alone. In providing machinery for conciliation and arbitration, the government is considering the welfare of communities as a whole," he declared.
Then he makes another statement which I think has some indirect relation, if not direct, to the matter under discussion, and I quote:
"The worker's right to strike has been won and now he should lay emphasis on the right to work, the right to produce, and the right to increase efficiency," he declared.
In passing may I say that I am sure all hon. members take pleasure in the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is recovering his health. We hope that that recovery will continue at a rapid rate.
I am not attempting to give the impression that my hon. friend from Vancouver East is against this bill. I have read the minutes of the committee on industrial relations too earnestly to fail to realize that he and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) were two champions of this amendment. I mention it simply because it was one of the first things that I read when I came into the Department of Labour, and it gave me such an upthrust of confidence, if you like, in this act that I wanted to pass his words on to the house tonight.
I said at the beginning that I had tried to approach this subject with an open mind, and I intend to maintain an open mind on it when this debate is over. From what I have said you will see that I do not object particularly to the thing my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre wants done. But as a new Minister of Labour I am concerned about his demand that we use the power of parliament to get that thing done, rather than to leave it for friendly collective bargaining.
At the moment there is no strong evidence of this thing being wanted now in this way by large groups of workers for whose welfare the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act was drawn up. At least there is no sign that it is wanted enough by them for them to forgo the other things that one might feel they want more. Furthermore, with the high record of industrial peace that labour and management have maintained since last September, and the importance of its continuing; with the important collective bargaining negotiations that are now under way; with the vital need for maximum production pressing more and more urgently upon Canada, I believe we should think twice before we inject any factor that might be a cause of irritation, either to the unions on the
,
one hand or to employers on the other. As Minister of Labour I shall continue to give close study to the pros and cons of this question. In the meantime, for the reasons I have stated, I have no other course but to vote against this bill on the motion for second reading.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this bill I think perhaps the best argument in favour of it is that it is an amendment to an act to provide for the investigation, conciliation and particularly settlement of industrial disputes. This amendment will remove one of the main causes of disputes between labour and management, without in turn causing any economic disturbance in the country or costing industry more than a few cents per month per employee. I understand that the railway unions, which come under the federal act, have offered on occasion to accept full responsibility for any charges that may be involved.
I also have received a copy of the brief of the Railway Association of Canada, but I fail to agree with any part of their submission. One of the best reasons for allowing a check-off is to be found in one section of that brief which states that their accounting is centralized while their employees are stretched out across the country, some being in small towns that are fifteen to twenty miles away from where the accounting is being done. The fact that the accounting is centralized means that only one simple punch on a tabulating card will be required to make the required deduction that could be done at very little expense to the companies involved.
It is true that this is a weak form of compulsion on the part of the companies involved. However, the present act that compels management and labour to meet and endeavour to settle their disputes is a form of compulsion. The compulsion here is no greater or no less than to require that once a union has been established the company shall give that union the minimum of union security. Union security is generally recognized and there are many decisions to this effect by famous judges and arbitrators. I have one in mind that I should like to place on the record. This is the report of the board in a dispute between Gotfredson Limited, Windsor, Ontario, and local 195, International Union, United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. The chairman of the board was His Honour Judge J. J. Coughlin, and I quote from the report as follows:
The board is of the opinion that the day of collective bargaining is here to stay. It is also of the opinion that of existing organizations the labour union is the best equipped to protect the interests of the industrial worker and is therefore the right kind of collective bargaining agent.

We further are of opinion that among labour unions that one will best serve the interests of its members which is governed by men of judgment and moderation and not by extremists.
We feel that no single influence is more important in bringing about the condition where men of the former rather than the latter type shall govern any union than is the friendly and co-operative attitude of management towards that union.
As I said earlier, to grant the check-off is a very limited form of union security but is recognition of the union by the management. I have here a copy of a union agreement which I had the honour to negotiate in June of 1949 prior to the general election of that year. It was the last occasion on which I had such honour. In it there is a clause governing the check-off. I should like to read it in order to show the house that there is nothing of a compulsory nature in the assignment. The assignment under section A of paragraph 64 is substantially in the following form:
The company shall honour a written assignment of wages to the union.
Section B reads:
An assignment pursuant to section A shall be substantially in the following form:
To the	company. Until this authority is
revoked by me in writing, I hereby authorize you
to deduct from my wages and pay to local	of
the	union	initiation fees	dues
	per month	
And so on. I cannot see that there is a great deal of compulsion there, certainly not on the employee. Of course union security was written into the agreement at an earlier time when I also had the honour of negotiating, and that security had been in existence for four or five years. Prior to the time the security of the check-off was granted to the union there was a measure of tumult in the ranks of labour and disagreements were more numerous. Once the check-off came into effect there was tranquillity between them and very great strides were made. There was a great deal of co-operation.. The union co-operated to the extent of allowing the company to introduce methods of job simplification. Every effort was put forward to speed up production, lower costs and so on. These things can be done, and at this time it is most necessary that there be close cooperation between management and labour.
The time has come when labour in all probability will have to relinquish some of the gains it has made over the past few years. Labour must have the confidence of management and must feel confident that management is not going to take away those rights during an all-out production effort. I am sure that if this measure is adopted there will be a great deal more co-operation, so far as labour relations are concerned, between
Industrial Relations
the railway companies and the railway employees. It might be worthy of mention at this time that the only strike that really affected the economy of Canada in recent years was in the railway industry where there is no measure of union security. It might also be worth mentioning in the interests of labour that the railway industry is far below others in the matter of wage increases since 1949. All other unions have gained their justifiable increases and the transportation industry is well down in the list. I am not going to say any more at this time other than to say that I feel the bill should pass.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to talk the bill out. I rise at this time for the purpose of carrying it over so that we may have an opportunity on Tuesday night to continue the discussion. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) made certain remarks tonight that require answering for purposes of clarification. May I tell him that to me this discussion seems very old. It is like going back and learning my catechism again, who made the world and that kind of thing, because it is a good many years ago that this particular measure became acceptable in my province. As the minister mentioned, many years ago the check-off was recognized in practice. It was brought to Nova Scotia from the old country. The English, Welsh, Irish and Scots immigrants, who were brought out here for coal mining in the early days when the province was being developed, brought the union idea with them and the method of collecting dues on a voluntary basis.
I know that when I started to work in the coal mines about 1908 the check-off of union dues was then a matter of course. They had even got past the period of paying dues over the counter, and the check-off was in effect when I first went into the mines, not by compulsion but by agreement. I cannot see the idea of compulsion. Every law on the statute books has an element of compulsion. We are compelled to recognize the laws of the country but the laws of the country are enacted for the purpose of protecting the great majority of the people against small minorities who want to rule as they see fit whether or not it is in the best interests of the country.
The word "compulsion" is a misnomer in relation to this bill because all laws have a certain element of compulsion. They must have. From the legal standpoint the check-off for union dues was put into the labour code of Nova Scotia in 1930 and has been in effect
642	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act there ever since. Under the terms of this particular bill there is nothing that compels a man to pay union dues. The laws of the province of Nova Scotia say that when the union and the employer come to an agreement the check-off is legal if they so desire. In the final analysis the application of the law is in the hands of those who negotiate the collective agreement, and the way that it shall be done is written into the union agreement.
If I so desire I can then go to my employer and tell him that I want my dues deducted in that way. If I do not want them deducted in that way then they are not. On the other hand, if the union misuses or abuses the privilege of collecting my dues in that way I can withdraw my card from the office and refuse to pay dues. I have seen that happen. In protest against certain activities of our hierarchy I have seen us withdraw our cards en bloc and keep them out for a long time in order to bring them to their senses. Therefore there is nothing detrimental to the best interests of the man who works.
The comparison between Great Britain and Canada is not a good one. In Great Britain there is a completely different set-up. It is the kind of set-up I would not want to have in Canada under our circumstances. While our system rests on collective bargaining, voting on strikes and that kind of thing, the British system is pithead action, strike on the job, without consultation with union officials, votes or anything else. They use it very temperately and with good judgment, but with the kind of industrial set-up we have in Canada if we had that kind of thing we would have a lot of difficulty.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the second reading of Bill No. 24, to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Prime Minister going to speak on second reading?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker; I made a statement about the general principle of the bill on the resolution. Of course there will be explanations supplied concerning the different clauses of the bill. The hill was drafted in the Department of Justice, and I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)
TMr. Gillis.l

will probably be in a better position than I am to deal with the explanations which may be required.
From the discussion during the resolution stage, I gathered that the principle of the bill was acceptable but that the terms might be carefully scrutinized. I would imagine that the discussion hon. members would desire to have would be upon the provisions of the bill, and not upon the principle of a bill of this character.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we would be very grateful if the Minister of Justice could make a statement on second reading.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I find that my hon. friend's suggestion is a rather awkward one for me to follow, because so far as the principle of the bill is concerned or the circumstances under which the bill if passed might operate, both have been covered, first by the extensive statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the resolution stage of this bill, and secondly, by the statements by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) concerning the defence program, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) concerning defence supplies, and with particular reference to the use that would be made of emergency control legislation when passed. To those statements I do not think I can usefully add anything. If I am to say anything, therefore, in response to the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) I can only do so in terms of some of the criticisms which have been made in the debate on the resolution by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).
The suggestion was made by the leader of the opposition that the bill should clearly state the powers that it purports to give. I believe that hon. members, having now had an opportunity of reading the bill, will see that it does clearly state what those powers are. Then, as I recall his statement, he said that we should state which of those powers we were proposing to assume. It is that point which is fully covered in general terms by the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
In so far as legislation of this nature is concerned, I think that the lawyer members at least would agree that if we knew exactly what powers we are going to need to use, it would not be necessary to pass legislation of this character giving powers to the governor general in council. We would pass a statute applying certain definite powers set out in the statute and be done with the

whole matter. It is because in the situation in which we now find ourselves there is a possibility that some or others of a number of powers may be required, as developing circumstances, which are not known at the time of the passage of the legislation, may make necessary, that legislation of this character is requested, and that these powers are left to the discretion of the governor general in council. All hon. members in the chamber will recall that during world war II an elaborate system of wartime controls of one kind and another was set up, and various crown corporations as well. Very wide powers were exercised by order in council, all pursuant to an act which was passed more than twenty-five years before, the War Measures Act.
From that I think it can be seen that it would be quite unreasonable to have asked the prime minister of the day, Sir Robert Borden, when he was seeking the enactment of the War Measures Act in 1914, to state which of the powers in that statute were going to be exercised by the government.
In the present case the member for Eglinton, in a speech which, with certain rather conspicuous exceptions, I thought was an admirable one, set out four requirements for legislation of this sort. I should like to refer to what he said. He said that, in the first place, it should carefully define the emergency. In the second place, it should trespass as little as required to meet the emergency on powers that are, under our constitution, normally held by the provinces. In the third place, he says we shall wish to see that the exercise of those powers is carried out with due regard for the responsibility of the cabinet to this house. Then he says that in the fourth place, as to defence of the rights of individuals in this country, rights that have often been ignored under similar legislation in times past, there must be in this bill provisions to safeguard the rights of the individual, so that he will not be denied access to the courts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit me to draw his attention to the fact that, in connection with the first safeguard, he has only stated part of it. It reads as follows:
In the first place, it should carefully define the emergency. It should carefully define the powers that are sought and the duration, of the powers commensurate with the duration of the emergency.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thank my friend for the correction. I proceed to point nut that my friend must be gifted with clairvoyant powers because every one of the requirements he set out for legislation of this sort has been carefully fulfilled. This bill was in the course 80709-4H
Emergency Powers Act of preparation before he made his speech- perhaps before he even started to think about it.
In the first place, he said that this bill should - carefully define the emergency. If members will examine the bill they will see that it is succinctly and carefully described. The preamble says:
Whereas an international emergency exists that threatens the security of Canada;
It should carefully define the powers that are sought, and the duration of the powers commensurate with the duration of the emergency. If members will examine the bill they will see that the powers which are effected are practically the equivalent of the powers effected by the War Measures Act, with three conspicuous exceptions which have to do with the rights of individuals with which the member for Eglinton was concerned. The omissions are first the power to detain, deport and exclude citizens; second, censorship and control and suppression of writing; third, appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property and the use thereof.
Then, with regard to the duration of the act, if passed, hon. members will see that clause 5 provides as follows:
Nothing in this act limits or restricts the powers conferred on the governor in council by the War Measures Act and, notwithstanding anything in section four, if while sections one to four are in force a proclamation is issued under the War Measures Act declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists, sections one to four are repealed and all orders and regulations lawfully made under or pursuant to authority conferred under this act in force immediately before those sections are so repealed, continue in full force and effect as if made under the War Measures Act and shall be deemed to have been so made.
In other words, this is an act passed to cover a more limited emergency that exists at the present time until such time-God forbid that it should ever come-as it is necessary to bring into effect the War Measures Act itself; whereupon the invocation of that act will provide a continuity for any steps that have been taken under this act, and go on from that point; otherwise the act expires on May 31, 1952, under clause 4 thereof.
My hon. friend's second point is that the act should trespass as little as is required to meet the emergency on powers that are, under our constitution, normally held by the provinces. I think there will be general agreement-and I need not labour this point-that where there is a declaration of an emergency of this sort, powers that are normally within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures comes under the jurisdiction of parliament.
The third requirement suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) is

Emergency Powers Act that the exercise of those powers be carried out with due regard for the responsibility of the cabinet to this house. If hon. members will examine the bill they will see that it provides for the tabling, under the Regulations Act, of all orders in council made pursuant to this act; and that it also provides in section 2, subsection 4:
If the Senate and the House of Commons within a period of forty days, beginning with the day on which any order in council made under this act is laid before parliament in accordance with the Regulations Act and excluding any time during which parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both the Senate and the House of Commons are adjourned for more than four days, resolve that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect, . . .
In other words the cabinet, in exercising its powers under this proposed act, must table the orders in council resulting from their invocation of those powers; and this bill in express terms provides for the Senate and the House of Commons the privilege of annulling the orders in council which the cabinet has passed if they wish to do so.
The last requirement of, I presume, his ideal statute of this kind which was suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton is that it safeguard the right of the individual so that he shall not be denied access to the courts in the assertion of his rights. If my hon. friend will examine the bill, I think he will find in it no clause which denies access of the individual to the courts.
I therefore think, Mr. Speaker, that the bill might easily be passed with this explanation which I have inflicted upon my fellow members in this house, only at the urgent suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green).


Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that if we felt that the bill in fact accorded so completely as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) says it does with the requirements of a perfect bill suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), we would pass it with far fewer reservations than we find we are compelled to make. Unfortunately, however, we do not agree with the minister that it accords so completely with those requirements as he appears to feel that it does.
I should say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the position we take is that, having pressed for some time, and particularly since September of last year, for the government to take some action to deal with the situation which we on this side felt was in fact one of emergency, and in particular having pressed for the declaration of the existence of an emergency, we cannot under the circumstances oppose the principle of this bill which

is, after all, in the first place, that an emergency exists and that therefore it is essential that the government should have emergency powers. That being the case, I can say for the official opposition that we are not opposed to the principle of the bill and will not oppose second reading of this measure. Nevertheless, we have a number of reservations. I suppose that at this point some of those on the government side might say: That seems to be the usual story. The minister, however, has himself referred to the requirements which were suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton as being desirable in legislation of this type. We do not feel that those requirements are met as fully as they might easily be met, and certainly not as fully as I think we are entitled to expect that they be met.
In connection with emergency legislation we have always pressed for as narrow a definition as possible of the powers to be delegated. I do not mean simply to define the categories of activities which are to come under control. There is certainly some effort to do that in this bill, just as there was under the War Measures Act. The minister himself has said that, under the War Measures Act, power to do almost anything in any manner was given to the governor in council. What we want, and what we feel there should be rather than a mere classification of the categories of subjects or activities which are going to be subject to the bill, is that there should be a statement of the way in which those activities are going to be controlled, and of what measures the government intends to take or contemplates taking either in the remote or in the immediate future, to deal with the situation which they must foresee arising by virtue of the emergency which they themselves have declared and to which they now invite the House of Commons to subscribe.
But here we have no accurate definition of the emergency. When one looks at the bill, Mr. Speaker, one finds that it states that an international emergency exists that threatens the security of Canada. That does not seem to me to be an accurate definition of what the emergency is. In what way does it threaten the security of Canada? In what way does it make it essential to take emergency powers to deal with it? Is it because of shortages of commodities? Is it prices that the government is worried about? Is it military action which is going to have to be taken? Or what is the object of this bill, and in what way are the powers going to be used?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What do you think?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I and other hon. members of this house have been asking that question for some

time, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) appears to have no better answer, even at this stage when the emergency has been in existence for many months, than to say: What do you think?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not ask what it is, though.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says that he does not ask what it is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What the nature of the emergency is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; the minister does not ask what it is. The minister presumably knows what the nature of the emergency is in the mind of the government, but we have not been favoured with the answer. That is what we are asking for.
There is similarly no accurate description of the powers which are conferred, or the limits within which these powers may be exercised. In connection with this point one has only to look at some of the general subjects, or categories of subjects, which are to be subject to control. Control of communications and means of communications, Mr. Speaker, gives power to do anything. What I think we are entitled to know is how communications are to be controlled. What sort of control is to be exercised over communications and the means of communications? Then we come to transportation by land, air or water, and the control of the transport of persons and things; and also trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture. There is no attempt to define what type of control over these categories is going to be exercised.
There being no definition, no limitation on the power to control, we can only take it that the control is absolute. This is borne out by the fact that the words used in these phrases which I have read-they are subsections of the bill-are in fact the same words as are found in the War Measures Act. Therefore we have the fact which I have taken objection to in the past, namely, that the government, while not saying that this control is necessary to be exercised now, nevertheless is asking us to surrender into the hands of the governor in council absolute control not of any specified or limited time, and not even specifying the time at which they intend to commence to use and the extent to which they intend to use those controls. Nor, in spite of what the minister has said, do we have in this bill any safeguard on the ordinary legal and private rights of the individual in connection with these matters subject to control.
There was one important point-if the minister will permit me-in the remarks which he made just now which should be corrected. He said that the powers given by the War
Emergency Powers Act Measures Act with respect to arrest, and so forth, of the person are excluded from this bill. They are not all excluded from this bill, Mr. Speaker. The War Measures Act gives power to the governor in council to make orders and regulations extending to, amongst other classes of subjects, one defined as arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation, four important sub-categories. The present bill excludes from the scope of the act only exclusion or deportation. It does not exclude the word "arrest"; so that the general powers given in the first operative clause of clause two of this bill, the powers given by the general words, must be taken to extend to and give to the governor in council the power to arrest. That, Mr. Speaker, of itself makes a very serious inroad into the ordinary legal rights of the individual.
Where in this bill do we find the safeguard of the principle of the rule of law? Control over these matters can all be exercised by the governor in council, including the right of arrest. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the government does not take the position that in order to exercise emergency powers it is necessary to exclude altogether the principle of the rule of law. And yet the words of this measure are sufficiently wide and allembracing to give absolute power to the governor in council at least over the categories of subjects included, and at least to that extent at any rate to upset altogether the rule of law with reference to those categories, including the power of arrest.
If the bill passes in its present form, to that extent and to an unnecessary extent, and to an improper extent, the principle of the rule of law will have been unnecessarily and arbitrarily abrogated. I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), if he sums up this debate on second reading, which I hope he will do, will reply to the arguments put forward, or during the committee stage will say whether he does take the position and whether the government takes the position that in order to have any emergency powers it is necessary to abrogate the principle of the rule of law.
These various questions of ensuring greater protection and preservation of the ordinary rights of the ordinary citizen, and ensuring the preservation of the rule of law, will be asked again with greater persistency and particularity in the committee stage. Another thing which we are concerned about now and will have more to say on when we come to the committee stage is the question of preserving the rights of parliament and control by parliament over the actions of the executive.

Emergency Powers Act
It is true the minister said that the government will be tabling the various orders in council within a certain time after they are passed, and that the parliament of Canada by resolution can revoke those orders and regulations. But, Mr. Speaker, it is an established fact under the rules of this house that the government controls the business of the house; and after the first four weeks of the session, which are usually and properly taken up with the speech from the throne, there is very little time for and practically no opportunity to have private members' business or resolutions brought to a conclusion by debate in the house because of the severe limitations on the time allotted to private business for the first four weeks of the session. There is therefore no assurance that any such resolution, if an order or regulation were to be tabled after the first four weeks, or well on into the session, would be dealt with. At that stage we are usually rushed and all the time is then given up to government business. There is in fact no way open to an hon. member, with any certainty, to bring such a resolution before parliament and have effective debate on it and a decision taken by vote either in support of or rejection of a resolution questioning one of these orders or regulations. In effect therefore this House of Commons will under the present bill, if it passes, have no control, no means by which it can express its opinion on the actions of the executive taken under the powers given to them in this bill.
To return to the question of the principle on second reading, there is one matter to which we take great exception, and that is the taking of emergency powers without any indication that the government really intends to use them. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) devoted a considerable part of his statement to the advantages of having emergency powers under this measure, rather than by proclamation invoking the War Measures Act. I think that, in so far as it gives parliament the right to say whether or not it agrees that there is an emergency, the Prime Minister's argument was an important one, and gave recognition to the principle of control by parliament to that extent over emergency legislation.
But the Prime Minister did not deal with anything like the same clarity or certainty with the question of the application of these emergency powers. I think it would be fair to say that he backed away, as have other hon. members of the government who have spoken in connection with the matter, from the subject of the application of emergency measures to control increasing costs, inflation and the cost of living.


No one likes emergency powers, if I may judge from the debates in the house during the last four or five years. There is hardly an hon. member who has not said at one time or another that, in principle, he does not like emergency powers. But the main division of opinion has been on the question of whether or not it was necessary to take those emergency powers, or to retain them when they had once been invoked. We now agree that it is necessary, and that the situation does justify the taking of emergency powers; but we do not approve of the giving of those emergency powers before they are to be used. Or, to put the matter in a reverse fashion, we feel very strongly that the time is now ripe for the government to use these powers for which they are asking-that they should use them as soon as they get them. Because to take these powers to control the various subjects over which the bill gives them power, and then not to use them, is simply to invite a continuation of the inflation we are now experiencing. It is simply to invite further increases in prices, and further demands for increases all across the board.
As reported at page 499 of Hansard the Prime Minister made this argument:
The very existence of the right to intervene and establish regulations sometimes is in itself sufficient as a warning to prevent abuses; and the existence of these stand-by powers may make it unnecessary to deal with abuses that might arise if they were not in existence.
I submit that argument has been completely discredited by events as they have developed. We saw the same or a very similar argument used in 1948 in connection with the prices committee, when the prime minister of that day, the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, said that by taking that action and by setting up that committee, and by bringing the searchlight of inquiry on the activities of people who were increasing prices, the committee would do much to prevent those increases. One has only to look at the history of that period, while the prices committee sat for some four months, at which time, as it was said with justification by members, the longer the committee sat the higher prices rose-and, as my hon. friend from Eglinton adds, the faster.
I suggest to the government and the house that if they simply take these powers, then the longer they sit with those powers unused, the higher and faster prices will rise.


Mr. Marlin:: I am sure the hon. member for Eglinton will deny that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He will confirm it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Eglinton assures me he confirms every word I have just spoken.
It is an invitation. The taking of these powers and then failing to use them, far from having the effect of discouraging increases in prices and the holding down of inflation, will act as an invitation to increase prices before the measures are actually invoked. Also, in the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-used in a different debate, so I shall not quote them- he felt that that very thing had been taking place, and that in many cases industry had got itself ready for the period of control which might be expected.
There is nothing to indicate that those who have taken advantage of this period to raise their prices will not place themselves in an equal position if the government simply takes these powers, and then refrains from using them. So I suggest that, if the government is to discharge its obligations in good faith to parliament and the people of Canada, it must not simply take the powers which it says it is necessary to have to deal with the emergency which it declares now exists, and then refrain from using those powers when people are suffering as a result of the conditions brought about by that very emergency.
I ask for the assurance that when these powers are granted under the bill the government is ready, and that it will bring forward at the earliest possible moment its plans and regulations to invoke these powers and to relieve the distress our people are now suffering as a result of the increase in the cost of living.
There is something else I say we should have from the government in connection with the bill, and that is an indication of how they propose to exercise the controls they will now have power to exercise. I have in mind for instance the control they will have over trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture. What do they contemplate by way of an organization to exercise that control? Is it to be done by an organization along the lines of the wartime prices and trade board, or how is the control to be exercised? I feel strongly that it is not proper to ask parliament to give these important and sweeping powers, powers for which we say they are justified in asking, without giving us some indication of how they propose to use them.
After all, the government is going quite some way, and the Prime Minister went quite some distance yesterday in indicating that he felt the proper approach to the matter is not for the cabinet simply to declare an
Emergency Powers Act emergency and to invoke the War Measures Act, but that they should now come before parliament and say, "We consider that there is an emergency. Here is the bill we present, and we invite you to join with us in declaring the emergency, and thus to give us power for which we ask". I say the government should complete the picture by taking parliament into its confidence and by saying, "Yes, we are asking you to join with us in declaring the emergency and giving us the power. Here is how we propose to exercise it, and this is the approximate time limit in which we intend to bring those powers into effect". I do not think the government will be discharging its obligation to parliament until it places us in possession of that information.
There is another aspect of this same deficiency, and that is the matter of information. We have always objected to what has been called blank cheque legislation, or the giving of absolute power without limitation and without knowledge of how it would be exercised:. In a sense, that is what is being done here. But it is even worse than that if the bill remains in its present form. It is giving the government the power to take absolute control of our economy without any knowledge as to when that control will be exercised. I think what parliament is being asked to do can best be illustrated by a simile. If a person were to give a cheque for $100 without any date he would not know when it was going to be presented. However, he could make allowance for it in his cheque book and then carry on knowing that some day he would have to meet that debit. But here we have a very different situation.
Some people carry on their household affairs by means of a joint bank account. Many husbands and wives do that. Quite often under those circumstances the end of the month comes around and the husband finds that the account is overdrawn. He does not know how much his wife has been spending. There are others who prefer to operate by trying to make an estimate of what the household expenses will be every month and then deposit that amount in a separate bank account. In that way they always know just what their position is and what demands are going to be made on them. Quite often even under those circumstances the account is overdrawn and then the one partner has to come to the other and say, "Will you give me a little more?" Quite often there is apt to be some difference of opinion, but in the long run what we term the weaker partner generally wins out and the extra accommodation is granted.
I think the government is in much the same position. They should not ask us to give them a joint account with respect to powers

Emergency Powers Act and then put us in the position where we would not know when the account was overdrawn or just what the situation was. Under this bill we will not know until some time after the powers have been invoked just what powers have been used, just what exercise the government is making of the powers we have delegated to them. I suggest that that is not a desirable or necessary-situation.
The government should define its powers much more narrowly and much more accurately, and should indicate also the time at which it intends to make use of them. If it should be found that there has been too narrow a definition, that some powers are needed over and above what have been granted, then I think, like the partners operating with a joint account, if the government were to come back and say, "Our account has been overdrawn; we have had an unexpected call on it, will you give us a little extra accommodation", under those circumstances the accommodation would be forthcoming.
As I see it, the government, parliament and the people of the country are all mutually interested in this matter. We are willing to give the powers. All we ask is that they do not be abused and that powers beyond what are needed are not taken. Then if the government should come back and say, "We have not taken sufficient powers to deal with this emergency", I am convinced that parliament, in a spirit of co-operation and partnership and exercising its right to properly control the executive on behalf of the Canadian people, would be quite willing to give the further necessary powers as soon as the case was made out.
I ask the government to take the house into its confidence. The government should realize that we are as concerned as they are that the emergency should be met. Sometimes I think we are a little more concerned because we would like to see them start dealing with it now, whereas they do not appear to be ready to do so. We are as anxious as they are that this emergency be met satisfactorily and that adequate power to deal with it should be granted. But they should not take advantage of the willingness of the house to co-operate in giving emergency powers by asking for powers over and beyond what is necessary and in advance of the time when they actually intend to use them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on the second reading of this bill I find myself thinking of a former member of


this house whose passing a few weeks ago was a matter of deep regret to all who knew him. I refer to Frank Jaenicke, the former member for Kindersley. Although he was a colleague of ours I sense from the reaction of the house at the mention of his name that it would be perfectly proper for me to say that hon. members in all parts of the house who knew him thought a great deal of him and were indeed sorry to learn of his passing.
I could see from the expression on the face of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) when 1 started that he knew to whom I was going to refer and why. It was Frank Jaenicke who so well expressed our view during the years of the last parliament with respect to the whole question of the right of the federal parliament to deal with matters like price control which were of concern to the people of the entire country. On several occasions Mr. Jaenicke gave the house the terms of the decision of the privy council in the Canada Temperance Act case and told us that their lordships' opinion at that time was that a matter which by its inherent nature was of concern to the welfare of the whole country could be legislated upon by the federal parliament.
It was on that basis that we argued during the years of peace between 1945 and more recent months that it was possible for this parliament to call upon the government to stay in the field of rent control and to impose price controls if it could be shown that they were necessary by their inherent nature to the well-being of the whole country. Having taken that position in what was known as the few years of peace, it is only natural that in an emergency situation such as now confronts us we should take the same position. There is nothing new in that aspect of this legislation so far as we are concerned or so far as our attitude toward it and our support of the principle is concerned. We submit that at the federal level there is the right to control things that are of concern to the whole country and that is consistent with the stand we have taken right along. Therefore we shall give our support to this bill.
However, even at the risk of getting into paths where only lawyers should tread I should like to comment on the situation that seems to be developing with respect to the constitutional basis on which we are proceeding in this country. It seems to me that there are three different bases on which we operate. We have the normal situation, although heaven knows when we are ever going to get back to it, when our constitution is the British North America Act. Then we have the completely abnormal situation which

wartime creates when our effective constitution becomes the War Measures Act. Then we have this third stage that comes in between, which is neither a normal time when we are governed by the British North America Act nor an abnormal time when the War Measures Act gives the federal government all powers. We have this in-between stage when parliament declares an emergency and gives certain powers to the federal government, even though those powers may override the British North America Act.
The right of parliament to do that seems to have been established by one or two court decisions, the Fort Frances case and I believe also the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the rent control question. I believe in both those cases the courts decided that if parliament declared there was an emergency it was not the business of the courts to look behind that declaration. Therefore at the moment I am not criticizing the situation or saying that it is good, bad or indifferent. I am just drawing attention to the fact that we now seem to have three different constitutional bases for operating in this country, and apparently we should fly a special flag to indicate which dispensation we are under. When this bill passes we will be under the in-between dispensation where we give to the federal government certain powers because of a limited emergency so declared by parliament.
With respect to the bill itself I am not going to take time to repeat some of the arguments that have already been made tonight with which I agree. I merely say in passing that I think consideration should be given to the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) as to the effectiveness of the provision for the Senate and the House of Commons to annul any order passed under this act. I like that provision. I am glad it is there. It is a gesture which seems to provide something completely lacking in the War Measures Act, but the question raised by the hon. member for Kamloops is a very real and practical one. Once a session of parliament gets under way and the first few private members' days get out of the way, how would it be possible for an order brought down by the government ever to be annulled?
Naturally the government is not going to bring in a motion to annul one of its own orders in that way. A private member would have to give notice in the usual way. His notice of motion would go to the bottom of the list of notices of motions, and probably by that time in the session would not be reached at all. I think the government might give some 80709-42
Emergency Powers Act consideration to amending that clause and writing into it some specific provision so that it could actually have more real effect on the floor of parliament.
The other point I want to say something about has been touched upon in part by the hon. member for Kamloops but apparently we have to keep hammering away at it. It is the point made by my leader (Mr. Cold-well) and by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) at the resolution stage, namely, that if parliament is prepared to give to the federal government these special powers because of the emergency that now exists parliament wants the government to start using those powers to try to do something to alleviate the worst effects of that emergency.
I am sure that from the way the newspapers reported the speeches of the leader of the opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. the other day the people of Canada must expect price controls almost momentarily. I remember one newspaper headline to this effect: Drew and Coldwell call on P.M. to hurry up with controls.
That sort of report of what is going on here is going out to the people, and I am sure there are many people in Canada who are greatly confused by what is happening. They heard a few weeks ago that amendments calling for price controls or for effective measures to combat inflation and the rising cost of living were defeated on the floor of the house. Then they hear of the government introducing a bill which will make it possible for the government to bring in controls. Therefore the people are wondering just what is going to happen. The government can resolve the confusion by acting as soon as possible once this bill has been passed and instituting some of these controls, particularly in the field where they are so urgently needed, and I refer to the question of the high cost of living.
This plea for price controls which can be met by the government once the bill is passed -some of us think it could have been met long ago but certainly the government admits it can be met once this measure is passed-is one that is made by ordinary Canadians. To a very large extent it is made by the housewives and workers of this country who are finding it impossible to get along on the amounts of money they have at today's high prices. It is made here on the floor of the House of Commons by members of all parties, but I should like to call one other witness to the plea for doing something about the rising cost of living. In this instance my witness is a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice R. L. Kellock. For the purpose of strengthening my argument that something must be done soon about the rising
*

Emergency Powers Act cost of living, I refer to the report that Mr. Justice Kellock made at the time he settled the railway dispute last fall; for, as hon. members will recall, he was appointed arbitrator under the bill passed here at the end of last August.
I have in my hand a copy of the award that he made. It is a very lengthy document. I do not intend to quote at length from it but I would point out that Mr. Justice Kellock accepted, and says so quite early in his report-indeed on pages 10 and 11-the contention of the railway workers that they had a right to expect their wage and cost of living relationship of 1948 to be maintained by the settlement that he would award to end last fall's dispute. That is the basis from which he worked. He tells us that in June, 1948, the cost of living index stood at 154-3. He then had to find out where the cost of living index stood at September 1, 1950, the approximate date of the bill that settled the strike. He ascertained that the cost of living index at that time was 169-8. On page 42 of his report Mr. Justice Kellock says that it would therefore take a 10-2 cents an hour increase in wages to the railway workers to do what he said they had a right to expect; that is, it would take 10-2 cents an hour to keep for the railway workers the same relationship between their wages and the cost of living index that obtained in 1948.
However, Mr. Justice Kellock said that the maximum award he was permitted to make under the terms of the bill passed by parliament last August was 7 cents. He makes that clear on pages 3, 4 and 32 of his report, as well as in other places, namely, that the limitation of 7 cents was placed upon him by the law passed by parliament. Therefore he says in his report when he awards the 7 cents, which is the maximum that he could give them, that he realizes this leaves the workers already, as at September 1 last year, 3-2 cents an hour behind that ratio between their wages and the cost of living index to which he said they were entitled. In fact, he pointed out that the situation would actually worsen, and that has happened already, for the cost of living index is already up to 172-5.


Mr. Prudham:: Do not forget the fortyhour week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall refer to that in a moment. First, let me quote Mr. Justice Kellock on page 42, where he says:
By September 1, 1950, the wage rate-cost of living relationship of the railway worker had deteriorated from the 1948 level to such an extent that 10-2 cents per hour was then required to restore that relationship. In other words, the seven cents asked for was already exceeded by 3-2 cents, and this margin, it would appear, will likely continue to be augmented.


Then, at page 43 in discussing this award he points out that it is to be remembered that, to the extent that past experience may be taken as a guide, the tendency will be for this advantage to be overtaken during the unexpired term of the contract here in question.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) suggested that I should not forget the forty-hour week. Mr. Justice Kellock makes an interesting comment with respect to the award of the forty-hour week. As a matter of fact, it is found at page 33 of his report. He says:
In my opinion, just as the employees have failed to appreciate the economic gain represented by the reduction in the work week, the railways have ignored in their submissions the disadvantageous position of the employees in the period September 1, 1950, to June 1, 1951, with relation to the rise in the cost of living index and in comparison with the situation in the durable goods industry, a situation which in both aspects would appear likely to become accentuated as the period progresses.
Note this next sentence:
It is the existence of this situation which has prompted me to fix June 1, 1951-
In other words, the seven cents an hour leaves the worker at a disadvantage, but that is all he can give them, so he has to make up for it as best he can.
It is the existence of this situation which has prompted me to fix June 1, 1951, the earliest date open to me, as the date for the coming into operation of the forty-hour week.
There is no doubt about it, Mr. Justice Kellock says the forty-hour week is worth something to the men, and because it is worth something to them he feels he should give it to them at the earliest possible date, as compensation for the fact that he could only give them seven cents an hour when the whole basis he had accepted at the start called for 10-2 cents an hour at September 1.
An hon. member over here said I should not forget the question of freight rates. I suggest to him that he get a copy of this report and see what Mr. Justice Kellock has to say about the increase in railway revenues during the first eight or nine months of 1950. He referred, for example, to the great increases in the revenues of the C.P.R., and he refers also to the C.N.R. deficit being turned into a net gain. He pointed out that these increases would mount still further during the balance of the year. He cites these increases in profits as one of the reasons why he feels the railways should pay the increased wages.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have gone further into that than I really intended, partly because of the interjections that have come along. My point was to suggest to the house, and to the government, that this plea for price controls

for the protection of the living standards of our workers and our people generally is not just a plea that comes from ordinary people who know only their own difficulties in making both ends meet. It is documented by no less a person than this justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He says in very moderate terms that the seven-cent increase he awarded was already 3 [DOT] 2 cents behind what they needed to maintain their 1948 ratio as at September 1 last year. He says the likelihood is that that situation will get worse during the period of the contract.
Let me spell that out a moment. As required by the terms of the bill the period of the contract is two years. That means that a situation which was already 3 [DOT] 2 cents an hour short last September will become worse over the two-year period if prices are allowed to continue to rise while the wages of these hundred and forty-odd thousand workers are frozen at that level. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, some hon. members might have noticed that a publication called The Letter-Review which comes to our desks from Fort Erie, Ontario, referred to what I said in this connection on a former occasion. It was suggested that what I had said was untruthful, and that I should apologize to the Commons for an alleged misrepresentation of the facts. I have shown tonight that what I said before was absolutely correct, and I suggest to the publisher of The Letter-Review that he read what I have said tonight in Hansard, and that if he has not got it perhaps he will obtain a copy of the report made by Mr. Justice Kellock. He will see, I am sure, that if there is any apology to be made, he owes an apology to me.
It is quite clear in Mr. Justice Kellock's report that he knew the limitations the bill imposed upon him. It was because the bill imposed a seven-cent limit on him that he gave the workers the forty-hour week at the earliest possible date, as compensation for the disadvantage of their getting only seven cents. Now, Mr. Speaker, with that situation confronting the railway workers, 148,000 of them according to the report of Mr. Justice Kellock, I submit that an even worse situation confronts many other workers as they find it impossible to increase their incomes while prices are continuing to rise. In other words it is our hope that the spirit of the newspaper reports of the debate of last Tuesday will be carried out. The people of this country heard that all parties were calling upon the government to hurry up and make use of these controls. We want to see these hopes realized so that we will soon get an effort on the part of the government to grapple with this problem of rising prices, and to roll them back if at all possible in order 80709-421
Emergency Powers Act to protect the wage and living standards of our people. Parliament is prepared to give those powers to the government. We will watch the government closely as to their democratic and parliamentary use of them, but at the same time we want them to use them for the well-being of our people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in the debate at the resolution stage preceding the introduction of the present measure, I suggested that we perhaps should not say too much lest the debate become doctrinaire, and lest there might be some surprises for us when the terms of the bill were made known. For my part, I must say that the bill has contained some surprises.
The debate tonight has turned on this point, and it is a point that has not yet been answered by the government. There is an emergency. Everyone admits the existence of an emergency, but it does not follow from that that the government must have powers under an extraordinary measure of this kind to deal with that emergency, especially when we are told by the government that they have no present intention of exercising those powers. Under our constitution, all that the existence of a national emergency does is to give parliament fields of jurisdiction to meet that national emergency that do not normally repose in parliament, but normally repose in the legislatures of the provinces. It does not necessarily follow that parliament must resort to measures of this kind granting vast powers to the governor in council.
The government has done an extraordinary thing in this debate, sir, both tonight and in the debate on the resolution stage. It has said, in effect, that they are not going to give the house any pledge or undertaking that they are going to use any of these powers. All they say is that if they think an occasion arises that calls for the use of some of these powers, they will use them. In the meantime, they are simply stand-by powers.
You will see at once, sir, the inherent weakness of the position the government has taken and the inherent weakness of the position that the government is inviting parliament to put itself in. If these are only stand-by powers, why should they be taken while parliament is in session? That question has not been answered by the government in this debate. As long as the government persists in declining to give to the house any indication as to when and how these extraordinary measures are to be exercised, it seems to me that the government itself is chopping away at the whole basis of the type of jurisdiction that it is inviting parliament to exercise at

Emergency Powers Act this time, namely, the existence of a national emergency. It is for that reason, in view of the continued attitude of the government in this respect, that I approach this bill with even greater misgivings than those I voiced in the debate on the resolution.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has been kind enough tonight to build his remarks in this debate around some observations that I made as recorded at page 527 of Hansard of February 20. By some extremely elastic substitute for logic-one might call it ersatz logic-he has undertaken to argue before this house that the bill meets those specifications that I humbly sought to put before the house on Tuesday evening. He does not content himself, however, with so monstrous a proposition. He goes further and says that I must somehow or other, in consequence, regard this bill as carrying out in some ideal fashion the requirements that I put forward in my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I do not think a measure of this kind could ever be regarded as ideal, in the first place. This kind of measure-namely one confiding vast powers in a government-is not one that any member of parliament can approach with any degree of satisfaction. Those of us who sat in the last parliament will view with the greatest reluctance the situation where we feel there is a national emergency and that special measures are needed to meet that emergency if only the government will take the necessary measures. I may just interject here, Mr. Speaker, that they have it within their power to do many things to help to meet this national emergency, without resort to extraordinary and distasteful legislation of this kind. But let me deal with the points that the Minister of Justice took up seriatim in his remarks tonight.
The first requirement that I put forward was that there should be in the legislation clear definitions of the nature of the emergency and of the powers required to meet the emergency, the duration of the powers to be commensurate with the duration of the emergency. The minister contents himself with reference to the first recital in the bill as being a sufficiently clear definition of the emergency. I cannot share his view on that, Mr. Speaker. All that recital says is: Whereas an international emergency exists that threatens the security of Canada.
It says nothing more than that.	It
seems to me that the minister rather wisely did not go any further in the reading of the preamble, because the next paragraph is an amazing collection of words. It is just so much verbiage. But apparently the minister does not treat that as being in any sense a 

definition of the emergency or the nature of it. So I shall spend no more time on that point.
But what of the definition of the powers in this bill, sir? I in my innocence expected that we were going to have before us a bill setting forth certain clearly defined powers. But what do we find in this bill? We find that, with only several exceptions- and those not of the highest importance compared with other matters-parliament is being asked to repose in the governor in council all the powers that parliament possesses. That is an extraordinary situation. When this bill comes into effect, with the exception of those several matters referred to in one of the subsections of section 2, parliament will have vested in the governor in council all the legislative powers that parliament possesses. That, sir, is not the kind of defined power that I thought, when I was speaking on February 20, a bill of this nature ought to possess. This bill completely fails to meet that simple and necessary specification.
The second point had to do with the disturbance of the normal constitutional relationship between the dominion and the provinces. The minister has said that this bill meets what I put forward there by way of principle, namely that there should be no trespass on the rights of the provinces, except to the extent that the measures necessary to meet a national emergency require it. We shall only know, Mr. Speaker, as time goes on, whether the government proposes to use this power in a way that would give offence to what I put forward as the second principle.
I do not think that any member of this house is going to relish a centralization of power at Ottawa. We had difficulty enough in trying to disperse that centralization of power in these recent years, and we do not want to have to go through that process again. As to powers that are required by the federal government to meet the exigencies of a national emergency, let me make it quite clear that the federal government must have them; and I am sure that parliament will be glad to give them to the government if we can be sure that they will be properly and wisely exercised.
Then I come to the third point, the maintenance of the principle of responsibility of the government to this House of Commons. Much was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in his remarks in committee of the whole on the resolution stage, of a provision in the bill to which the Minister of Justice has referred tonight. When the

Prime Minister was making his remarks I thought we were going to have something far exceeding what we, on examination, actually find in this bill. The point that the Prime Minister was making was that whatever might be done by way of the passing of orders in council would come back to parliament, and parliament would have full opportunity to exercise its rights as the supreme body to which the government is ever responsible. I am not going to discuss the detailed provisions of the bill in this second reading stage, but I point out to you, sir, that that provision in the bill falls far short of guaranteeing to us, under present circumstances, the maintenance inviolate of the principle for which I have been contending. In the first place, it applies only to orders in council. It does riot apply to any regulation made under the authority of any order in council. In the second place, as this bill is drawn, there is the possibility of great delay in the tabling of those orders in council in parliament.
Let me remind you, sir, that this bill provides only for the tabling of these orders in council in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations Act, a statute that was enacted in this parliament a year ago. May I remind the house that the provisions of this act run to this effect, that the governor in council shall publish in the Canada Gazette such orders and regulations within thirty days after they are made. Then there is a further provision that within fifteen days after publication in the Canada Gazette such orders and regulations are to be tabled in this house. In other words, sir, forty-five days may pass under that procedure from the time an order in council is made before that order in council need be tabled in the house by the government under this bill. I say, sir, that is far too long a time lag in the tabling of orders in this house, orders that may in their effect be more far-reaching than any statute that parliament in the ordinary course is called upon to enact.
I say, sir, that this is not a case where parliament can be content with the application of the procedure provided by the Regulations Act. It seems to me we must have in this bill a provision requiring the very prompt tabling in the house of all orders in council passed under authority of this bill.
Then, of course, there is the third point, which has already been referred to by my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). It seems to me that, unless there is to be a revision of the rules of this house, any such provision as appears in this
Emergency Powers Act bill, that parliament may by joint action of the Senate and the House of Commons annul an order in council within forty days after it has been tabled in the House of Commons, is purely illusory; because you know, sir, that the only way in which steps can be taken in this house to effect that annulment of an order in council would be by private members' resolutions.
After the first few weeks of a session what chance has a private member's resolution of ever being adopted in the house? The house knows in fact, sir, that after another few weeks-we do not know how long-the government will be proposing to take away from the house the two days now remaining per week to be allotted to private members for introduction of their notices of motions. Beyond that, such a provision in a bill would be an absolutely dead letter. Even in the early weeks of the session, while the situation this year has improved over that experienced in previous sessions, we know that there simply has not been time enough allotted on private members' days for more than a fraction of the notices of motions standing in the names of private members to be debated in the house. The situation has improved in the present session. There are not nearly as many of these notices of motions filed in the names of private members. But we have no guarantee that the situation obtaining in the present session will be repeated in succeeding sessions. If experience runs as it did in the course of the last parliament we may be seeing something like fifty or more notices of motions standing on the order paper in the names of private members. Then when the government tables these orders in council and some hon. member gives notice of motion of his intention to move to annul the order in council it necessarily starts at the bottom of the list. Therefore I say, sir, that if any weight is to be given this annulment provision in the bill there has to be a new procedure provided in this house to give some real meaning and significance and effect to such a provision in relation to annulments.
I come to the fourth point which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) dealt with tonight, arising out of my remarks of February 20. The fourth point that I sought to make, sir, was that in the bill there must be provision to safeguard the rights of the individual so that he shall' not be denied access to the courts in the assertion of his rights. The Minister of Justice, I think in great error, said that no clause in the bill denies access to the courts. Now, sir, the Minister of Justice is, with one very striking exception, correct in saying

Emergency Powers Act that you do not find in the bill any express provision denying access to the courts. If he refers to the powers conferred by the bill on the governor in council he will see that it will lie within the power of the governor in council by order in council under these provisions to deny access to the courts on the part of the individual.
I mentioned an exception. The great exception was the one that has already been referred to. The War Measures Act provides that the power of arrest is included in the subject matters expressly deemed to be included in the power of the governor in council under that section. When this bill was drawn, and the draftsman came to write the provisions containing these matters that are expressly excepted or reserved from the powers conferred on the governor in council, he did not follow the language of the War Measures Act, which reads in one subsection in these words "arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation." The draftsman dropped that very important word "arrest", and the reservations in this bill in that respect are simply "detention, exclusion or deportation of any person". So that, and we might as well acknowledge the fact, we have in this bill, once it is enacted in its present form, given power to the governor in council to legislate toy order in council in such a way as to cause arrest.
In his reading of the bill I am sure the Minister of Justice overlooked that. The governor in council, mark you, may not under the present bill make orders in council or regulations in relation to the detention, exclusion or deportation of any person; but he may, under the general powers given to him under this bill, make orders and regulations with respect to arrest.
I would have thought a perfectly obvious course for the government to take, if its intentions were so impeccable in this respect, would have been to have specified the word "arrest" along with these other subjects which are what we call in the courts in pari materia.
That is not all. The Minister of Justice was not a member of the government in the days of what I might call the heyday of order in council when, under powers similar to those which the house is asked to confer on the governor in council, orders in council were being passed which did interfere with the right of the individual to have access to the courts. That is no idle statement, sir. There were many orders in council and regulations which had in some of their provisions that result.
In 1947 the then remaining 57 orders in council were consolidated in connection with a bill which then acquired for all eternity,


I trust, the name of the Heinz bill, the 57 varieties. If you refer, Mr. Speaker, to your copy of the consolidation of the 57 orders in council, which I hope you have carefully preserved, you will find provisions like these. On page 11 we have clause 6 of P.C. 6759, passed on the 6th of November, 1945, entitled, "The repayment of subsidy regulations." That provision reads as follows:
6.	No person shall institute or continue any action or other proceeding to recover any sum of money paid, before these regulations came into force, to Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited, or to any person on behalf of His Majesty or of such corporation, as a repayment of subsidy involved in goods that were to he or had been exported, or sold or taken out of Canada as ships' stores.
There is a clear interference with the right of an individual to have access to the courts. Then, if we turn to page 28 of the consolidation, we find clause 15 of a very important order in council, P.C. 8528, dated November 1, 1941. The provision I am now about to read remained in effect until 1947, having been changed slightly in that year. But this was the law of the land, denying access to the courts. Section 15, referring to the wartime prices and trade board, states:
15. (1) No member of the board and no administrator or other person employed or appointed by the board or acting on behalf of or under authority of the board shall be or become liable to any person for or in respect of any act or omission of himself or any other- person in the exercise or purported exercise of any power, discretion or authority or in the performance or purported performance of any duty conferred or imposed by or under these regulations or any regulations for which these regulations are substituted or otherwise conferred or imposed by the governor in council.
(2) No proceedings by way of injunction, mandatory order, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or otherwise shall be instituted against any member of the board, administrator or other person for or in respect of any act or omission of himself or any other person in the exercise or purported exercise of any power, discretion or authority or in the performance or purported performance of any duty conferred or imposed by or under these regulations or any regulations for which these regulations are substituted or otherwise conferred or imposed by the governor in council.
There, sir, we see by action of the officials named a complete denial of the individual's normal right of access to the courts.
Then if we will turn to page 41 we find another provision in P.C. 7475 dated August 26, 1942, referring to the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation. Section 6 of the order reads:
6. (1) No director, officer, clerk, or employee of the corporation, and no person acting on behalf of or under the authority or supervision of the corporation shall be or become liable to any person for or in respect of any act or omission of himself or any other person in the exercise or purported exercise of any power, discretion, or authority or in the

Emergency Powers Act
performance or purported performance of any duty conferred or imposed by or under these regulations or any amendment thereof or any other order in council or statute.
(2) No proceeding by way of injunction, mandatory order, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or otherwise shall be instituted against the corporation or any director, officer or employee thereof or any person acting under the authority of the corporation for or in respect of any act or omission of itself, himself or any other person in the exercise or purported exercise of any power, discretion or authority or in the performance or purported performance of any duty conferred or imposed by or under these regulations or any amendment thereof or any other order in council or statute.
And, sir, I mention this one further, at page 137 of the same consolidation. This is part of order in council P.C. 9439, December 19, 1944. It is an emergency shelter regulation, and section 9 states:
9. (1) No member of the board and no administrator or other person employed or appointed by the board or acting under authority of the board shall be or become liable to any person for or in respect of any act or omission of himself or any other person in the exercise or purported exercise of any power-
And so on.
There we find the same kind of provision as we had in the other two orders I read, including the prohibition or denial of the right to bring proceedings by way of injunction, mandatory order, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, or otherwise.
Now, when the Minister of Justice says, therefore, that no section in the bill denies access to the courts, apart from the very striking oversight in regard to the arrest of any person, the minister has completely overlooked the fact that, if this bill is enacted in its present form, power will be vested in the governor in council to legislate by order in council in terms such as I have quoted from these orders in council in the earlier years, and which do effectively deny to the individual his right of access to the courts in matters which to him are of high importance.
The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a remark which received general approbation in the house when he said it was preferable to proceed by way of a bill of this kind rather than by the invocation of powers for which provision is made by the War Measures Act. Sir, I think it is worth noting that while there are some things, some powers, in the War Measures Act that are not claimed by the governor in council under this bill, nevertheless there are provisions in the War Measures Act which might better have been added to the bill.
Now, if hon. members would make comparison of the provisions in the two measures, they would see that there was in the War
Measures Act a provision reserving what might be called vested rights acquired under the provisions of the act. There was in the War Measures Act a provision which has no counterpart in the present bill. The one I now refer to is found in section 3(2) of that act. The earlier words of the subsection are found in section 2(3) of the bill, but the following words are not. The words found in the bill are these:
All orders and1 regulations made under or pursuant to authority conferred under this act have the force of law-
And so on. Then we do not find in the bill any counterpart of the following provision as it is set out in the War Measures Act: -and shall be enforced in such manner and by such courts, officers and authorities as the governor in council may prescribe, and may be varied, extended or revoked by any subsequent order or regulation-
And then please note these words:
-but if any order or regulation is varied, extended or revoked, neither the previous operation thereof nor anything duly done thereunder, shall be affected thereby, nor shall any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred thereunder be affected by such variation, extension or revocation.
I would ask hon. members to note that under that provision, where any change was made in an order or a regulation by variation, extension or revocation, any right acquired under the order in council as it previously provided was carefully preserved by this legislation. We do not find any counterpart in the present bill of that provision which, it seems to me, is an essential safeguard) of the rights of the individual. And I view that omission with greater concern- yes, alarm-after hearing the statements made in the house several days ago by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) himself. His statement is found at page 420 of Hansard for Friday, February 16. On that occasion he came to the house with the announcement that the government had sustained another defeat in connection with certain litigation pending in the courts. I shall not discuss a subject which is sub judice, but I would point out something in the statement of the Minister of Justice on that occasion which is very significant. The minister said in effect, "We have been unsuccessful in our appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and we will take this action". He is the man who a year and a- half ago denounced in this house appeals to the privy council as being badges of colonialism. Nevertheless he now announces that this government is going to appeal this case to the privy council. That is a strange course to be taken by a government which spoke through the Minister of
656	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act Justice in the language I have just referred to when dealing with the right to appeal- the badge of colonialism.
The Minister of Justice did not content himself with that extraordinary course of action. He said that if the government were not successful in its appeal to the privy council it would take steps to deal with rights that might be accruing to persons other than those who are parties to the litigation. In other words, what the Minister of Justice was saying to this house was that if they did not beat Hallet and Carey Limited and Mr. Nolan in this case they were going to bring into effect retroactive legislation, by means of order in council or otherwise, to take away whatever rights certain people may have acquired as a result of the decision in the pending litigation.
What an extraordinary proposition! This government is not going to be content simply to reverse the position it took a year and a half ago with respect to accepting decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and denying appeals to the privy council; it is going to destroy the rule of law by, in effect, taking steps to take away by retroactive legislation, ex post facto legislation, rights which people may have acquired in the course of this pending litigation although not parties to it. That is an extraordinary proposition for this government to put before the house. If that be done in the name of justice, it just makes a travesty of justice.
For that reason it seems to me that this house must be sure that we write into the bill before the house the kind of safeguards that appear in the War Measures Act but which were not carried into this bill by the draftsmen. If we do not take that step and write into this bill important safeguards and further reservations, not only will we be giving to the government practically all the legislative powers that we possess, with the

several exceptions in subsection 2. of section 2 of the bill; we will have failed to apply the safeguards in the interests of the rights of individuals which are to be found in the War Measures Act. Better to have the provisions of the War Measures Act in that respect and particular than the bill now before the house.
I hope that the Minister of Justice will take into consideration the observations that have been made tonight in the course of the debate. I hope that on reflection he will appreciate that what has been said by hon. members who have spoken from this side of the chamber has been said with a view to improving the bill. If the kind of safeguards that have been proposed are added to the bill, it will be an infinitely better bill than it is in its present form. If the government on further reflection will undertake to introduce the necessary amendments, the more credit to the government. If the government will not do that, it will be left to the opposition to discharge its duties.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Howard Charles Green: May I suggest that we have done a pretty good day's work today and we cannot accomplish anything more. I suggest that we call it a day.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Monday is private members' day so we shall follow the procedure indicated in standing order 15.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Monday, February 26, 1951